what green dots?
Posts: 3,157 
November 22nd, 2006, 12:57 PM
Parts of it. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary for them so I didn't bother going into detail. Knew what to look for. Spotted the same errors in principle Sanger confirms. Didn't want to waste the paper it would take to print it off.
Parts of it. I didn't see anything out of the ordinary for them so I didn't bother going into detail. Knew what to look for. Spotted the same errors in principle Sanger confirms. Didn't want to waste the paper it would take to print it off.
what green dots?
Posts: 3,157
November 22nd, 2006, 01:28 PM
After I read the executive summary I went straight for it. Figured I'd wait for one of the pros to confirm the data source for CPP used the standard methods for estimating unfunded liability since it involved looking up another report. After that I'd know it was just the usual corporate lackey alarmism. and it is.
After I read the executive summary I went straight for it. Figured I'd wait for one of the pros to confirm the data source for CPP used the standard methods for estimating unfunded liability since it involved looking up another report. After that I'd know it was just the usual corporate lackey alarmism. and it is.
Running out of ranks
Posts: 8,366 
November 22nd, 2006, 01:40 PM
I see...I guess we will just have to wait and see. i don't think we would ever agree on this issue anyways.
That is "lackey alarmism".
I see...I guess we will just have to wait and see. i don't think we would ever agree on this issue anyways.
Quote:
lackey alarmism
Quote:
1. Acknowledge your dependency on funding from the drug and insurance industries, which would profit enormously from your push to destroy medicare, social programs and “restructure” old age security.
2. Come clean about these massive conflicts of interest and provide full disclosure instead of misleading statements, massive omissions and quarter truths in your reports.
3. Abandon your unrestrained idolatry of corporations and acknowledge that there is a greater public good beyond free markets.
4. Admit that public services — such as health care, education, social security, community services, environmental protection — can be much better and more efficiently provided by the public sector than by private corporations.
5. Search deep into your soul and try and demonstrate a modicum of integrity and honesty in your reports.
6. Renounce funding from multinational drug companies and insurance companies, ask forgiveness, and work to serve those whom you have harmed by your actions, including ordinary Canadians and the most vulnerable in society.
2. Come clean about these massive conflicts of interest and provide full disclosure instead of misleading statements, massive omissions and quarter truths in your reports.
3. Abandon your unrestrained idolatry of corporations and acknowledge that there is a greater public good beyond free markets.
4. Admit that public services — such as health care, education, social security, community services, environmental protection — can be much better and more efficiently provided by the public sector than by private corporations.
5. Search deep into your soul and try and demonstrate a modicum of integrity and honesty in your reports.
6. Renounce funding from multinational drug companies and insurance companies, ask forgiveness, and work to serve those whom you have harmed by your actions, including ordinary Canadians and the most vulnerable in society.
That is "lackey alarmism".
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,995
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
Location: Florida, Hurricane Central
November 22nd, 2006, 01:44 PM
Until the end when the uber-biased CUPE economist wrote that trite drivel you recommended.
lol
Is that so, Matlock Did you see the calculations from the Fraser Institute report? Did read the CUPE economist's math?Or are you just following what that uber-biased CUPE shrill was saying?
Maybe the CUPE guy is right, I don't know. But to accuse the Fraser Institute of political bias based on what CUPE says without analyzing the underlying methodology is the ultimate pot calling kettle black.
Quoting BitWhys
Yeah, you are.
At least I'm not pretending to state anything otherwise.
Quoting BitWhys
I wasn't stepping around the accusations. In fact, I was taking the accusations fairly seriously.
Nice job of stepping around the accusations
Until the end when the uber-biased CUPE economist wrote that trite drivel you recommended.
Quoting BitWhys
In court?
you know damn well the Fraser Institute would be unable to refute in court.
lol
Is that so, Matlock Did you see the calculations from the Fraser Institute report? Did read the CUPE economist's math?Or are you just following what that uber-biased CUPE shrill was saying?
Maybe the CUPE guy is right, I don't know. But to accuse the Fraser Institute of political bias based on what CUPE says without analyzing the underlying methodology is the ultimate pot calling kettle black.
