Aller au contenu

GoMontreal

Membre
 Afficher le profil  Parcourir son contenu

  • Compteur de contenus

    495

  • Inscription

  • Dernière visite

  • Jours gagnés

    2

 Type de contenu 

Tout ce qui a été posté par GoMontreal

  1. GoMontreal
    A preference for a sports team to win over another has absolutely nothing to do with politics, patriotism, etc. With your point of view, I guess someone from Ottawa now living in Montreal is not allowed to rout for Senators when playing the Canadiens or others. Or worse, your ideal player composition for the Canadiens would be 80% Quebecois, and 20% of the various other ethnicities that compose Montreal. Oh, but those numbers are for Quebec, so what would be the territory for Canadiens players? What about a player from Hawkesbury, Ontario, would he play for Montreal or Ottawa? I'm sorry but your stance on this just doesn't make sense and is unrealistic.
  2. GoMontreal
    Wow, that is so ridiculous! So, in your perfect world, a person comes in to Canada and never looks back. It doesn't matter what country you are from, you're not allowed to rout for their soccer team or be proud of your background. That's insane! I think your argument would apply to, say, wars. You come to Canada and you promise to stand by it's core values and stand behind it when at war with any country or else get out. But to bring this to the level of a soccer game confuses the issue.
  3. GoMontreal
    C'est pas ce que j'ai dis. Mais, quand on voit comment le système fonctionne et comment on peut en profiter, on en profite. Et la proportion des gens qui abusent du système n'est pas minime. En fait, si personne abuserait du système, on aurait pas de problème. Les abuseurs sont justement le problème et le plus qu'on en donne, le plus qu'on en recoit. Notre population est beaucoup moin productive qu'ailleurs en Amérique du Nord justement parce que la motivation est manquante. Si quelqu'un perd sa job, la réaction normale devrait être, maudit, il faut que je m'en trouve une autre au plus sacrant! Par contre, ici, c'est le contraire, on perd sa job, bof, je vais prendre ça relaxe (sur le chomage) pour quelques mois et regarder lentement et puis si je ne trouve rien, et bien j'aurais toujours le BS pour m'aider. Cette mentalité est très répandu au Québec et c'est un cancer à notre société.
  4. GoMontreal
    Mon père est sur une liste d'attente depuis janvier pour un bi-pass, c'est pas grâve... pas de presse. Mon oncle, atteint du cancer, ne recoit aucun traitement car les bureaucrates ont décidé qu'ils n'en valaient pas la peine. Une chance que j'ai pas juste un oncle parce que ça l'aurait pu être triste. C'est ce qu'on appelle du rationing, et quand les gens aux US ont peur de ça, des death panels, etc, on leur dit que ça n'existe pas, que c'est pas comme ça au Canada. C'est pas mon expérience. J'aimerai bien que les médias américain me pose la question sur ce qu'un canadien pense du système de santé canadien (et des autres services sociaux). Ça serait pas rose...
  5. GoMontreal
    Évidemment, des gens criminels ou qui semblent douteux ne devrait pas être bienvenue dans notre pays. Par contre, la violence, c'est un symptôme de pauvreté et surtout un problème urbain, ce n'est pas absolument rattaché à une certaine ethnicité et il est d'après moi, dangereux de mêler les deux. J'apprécie beaucoup les textes de l'institut Fraser. Je pense qu'a part pour les cas de criminels, l'immigration devrait être dérèglementé. Le problème c'est que tout le monde viendrais abuser de nos services sociaux (BS, chomage, santé, etc.), c'est pourquoi il devrait être aboli. Ça ferait de nous un pays multiculturel avec plein d'opportunité et beaucoup de choix et liberté. Mon pays de rêve dans le fond...
  6. GoMontreal
    Une chance que le ridicule ne tue pas!
  7. GoMontreal
    NNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN!!!!!!!!!!
  8. GoMontreal
    Totally understand what you're saying. I am also annoyed when I push some idealistic ideas and then some dude out of nowhere smacks me back to reality with facts and figures and calculations showing me how wrong I am. :-) Instead of right-leaning, I prefer you call people like me fiscal conservatives to not confuse with neo-cons or religious right. Arguing over religion and morals is no fun. Arguing over facts and actual numbers is lots of fun. Here are some facts for supposedly empathy-filled lefties: - Evil self-serving conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals. - The most evil country in the world, the United States, gives 1.66% of GDP to charity compared with 0.27% of GDP for the nicest nation in the world, Québec. Average donation per person is 761$ in the US and 106$ in Québec. - Among people giving more than 1 million dollars a year (in the US), 26% increase their donations in time of recession, whereas 23% decrease. The difference between conservatives and liberals is simple. Conservatives take their responsibilities as citizens and work hard, and love to help the poor. Liberals rather take money away from the rich/hard working people at gunpoint (through taxes) and give it to their friends, and the poor (if it's good PR) and give as little as possible themselves. Conservatives give responsibly by making sure to not give again to people/organizations that don't use it properly. Liberals (through government) give to people/organizations that aren't accountable to anyone as long as it doesn't put a politician's reelection prospects on the line. One way conservatives keep an eye on non-profits is by checking how much, per dollar, actually goes to the cause. The rest is bureaucracy. Lefties love bureaucracy because it creates jobs for the lazy and idealist where they don't need to actually produce anything. Left-wing causes usually have a lower per dollar amount going to the actual cause. As for your last comment, about open-mindedness. Well, who is closed minded now? Lefties always claim to be open-minded and say conservatives are closed-minded but that is complete non-sense. Lefties are only open-minded to left-wing ideas, so stop claiming your superiority in this way.
  9. GoMontreal
    Les syndicats sont des ruineurs de compagnies et devraient être illégal, comme la colusion par les compagnies de construction. Les syndicats élève les coût d'opération, rend la gestion d'une compagnie très difficile et distortionne le marché. Les syndicats sont aussi une manière superbe de détruire des jobs, et donc rend ceux qui travaillerait au taux plus bas encore plus pauvre. Voici des chiffres pour faire un example (je m'excuse d'avance aux socialistes qui n'aime pas les chiffres et les statistiques): Compagnie X a 100,000$ de budget par année pour les salaires, ce qui leur donne, par exemple, 8 emplois à temps plein à 6$/h. Si on monte le taux à 8$/h, sans compter les énormes dépenses encouru par la compagnie en autres frais, on viens d'éliminer 2 jobs. 2 personnes qui doivent donc aller sur le chomage, et après sur le BS si ils n'ont pas trouvé de job. Évidemment, les coûts supplémentaires d'opération nous sont chargées dans le prix des produits qu'on achètes, donc une taxe supplémentaires pour la population en général. Les syndicats et leur demande irréaliste sont des détruiseurs d'économie, des créateurs d'inflation et des créateurs de pauvreté, rien de moins. Les jobs 'affreuses' servent par contre de la meilleure motivation possible pour s'éduquer et travailler fort pour avancer dans la vie et pas rester pogné à ce niveau, un genre de mal nécéssaire/utile.
  10. GoMontreal

    Montreal is a scandal

    GoMontreal a répondu à un sujet de cjb dans L'actualité

    Ouais, mais oublies pas que les démocrates ont créé les lois leur permettant et leur obligeant de faire ces folies et leur garantissant que si ils se plantent, le gouvernement leur donnera des bailouts. Les démocrates sont de bons amis de wall street, c'est surement pourquoi plusieurs des execs de wall street travaillent maintenant pour l'administration Obama. C'est quand même les gouvernements qui sont les plus grands opérateurs de Ponzi schemes sauf que pour eux, c'est facile et ça parait bien car il rendre leur crime légal, et ils disent qu'ils veulent aider le petit monde. Ya right!!
  11. GoMontreal
    Well ok, these people look like idiots but there are just as many videos like this one making lefties look like idiots. Don't generalize right-wingers into a group of religious-extremist nut bags because it's not really like that. Second, just like them, I would probably look/sound just as stupid on camera when asked a question because of nervousness. I am against so many bills that the democrats are putting forward right now that I'm not sure if I could count them. I know exactly what I'm against but in front of the camera, I know I would be too nervous to come up with more than one or two. Most people are not used to being interviewed like that on tv and it's normal to be nervous I think. There are plenty of idiots on both sides. This video and many news items are out to get the most idiot looking signs and footage and that's just not representative. At least right wingers don't use violence when protesting like left-wingers do. It also shows how radical the democrats are being right now to have so many people come protest, conservatives usually roll their eyes in disbelief and then go on with their day. So to have them get out and peacefully protest is a great thing for the future of freedom in the world. Lefties, on the other hand, protest all the time, and they do so violently. The radical lefties go around trashing cities when the G20/G8 meetings come to their city, there's the police brutality protests that always escalates to violence. There's environmental terrorists that go around blowing up pipelines and other infrastructure that barely ever makes the news. I mean, give me a break, let's stop painting conservatives as radicals for no reason and concentrate on the people that are actually doing the damage. Lefties want government handouts and want the rich to pay for it all. That is a lazy mindset to have in life and it's just sad. Take care of yourself and take your responsibilities. Stop offloading all your problems to the government.
  12. GoMontreal
    Climate justice? What the hell is climate justice?
  13. GoMontreal
    Hmmm, corporations can only operate at a loss for a short time unless they are friends with the government from which they then get bailouts.
  14. GoMontreal
    Exact, en autant que le Ponzi Scheme du gouvernement continue, il n'y a pas de problème. Peu importe, c'est la prochaine génération qui paiera. Madoff est en prison, par contre, le Ponzi Scheme du gouvernement est bien plus gros et plus élaboré et malheureusement légal. Qui est-ce qu'on va mettre en prison?
  15. GoMontreal
    Voici pourquoi le Québec est économiquement en retard, on gaspille notre argent pour nos programmes sociaux au lieu d'investir dans nos infrastructure. source: Antagoniste.net Les ruines Voici l’état des infrastructures canadiennes, j’attire votre attention sur la situation au Québec: Il est ironique de constater que les 3 provinces les plus taxées du Canada (Saskatchewan, Terre-Neuve, Québec) sont aussi celles avec les plus vieilles infrastructures. Une autre preuve tendant à démontrer que plus le gouvernement devient tentaculaire, plus il s’éloigne de ses missions premières. Sources: Statistique Canada L’âge de l’infrastructure publique : une perspective provinciale Âge de l’infrastructure d’enseignement : tendances récentes
  16. GoMontreal
    Totally agree! Except most people don't understand politics and economics enough to agree with you. As for getting a new country... what for? With Conservatives in power, there's no need. The liberals are the ones that centralize and take away provincial powers making Québec unhappy. Again, Québecers are too near-sighted to realize that the best federal party for them is the conservatives, definitely not the Bloc or the Liberals. Unfortunately, that is wishful thinking and left-wing smear campaigns scared off and will continue to scare off Québecers from voting conservative. THAT is the status-quo that needs to be changed.
  17. GoMontreal
    Wow, ok. Since I'm so backwards thinking, maybe I should go back and choose to not get into this conversation with you. BTW, when I say that I want economic growth for Montréal, I don't mean at the expense of Terrebonne. I want economic growth at the expense of competing metro areas like Ottawa, Toronto, and various american/international cities.
  18. GoMontreal
    In which way does intelligent urban planning spur economic growth? Whose lives are we improving the quality of with this project? Most businessmen don't give a shit about 'cohesive fabric' of a city. There's plenty of room on René-Lévesque Ouest to expand downtown. There's no need to go south, only a want.
  19. GoMontreal
    Economic growth would require that new companies establish themselves in Montréal and employ currently unemployed Montrealers. How will this project do this?
  20. GoMontreal
    I think you're confused with NEED and WANT. A well-functioning economy so that we can feed our families and grow is a NEED. A nicely planned neighbourhood/entrance to Montréal is a WANT. A want is a luxury that we pay ourselves (like a 50 inch HDTV) when we have the money to do so (in the government's case, it's when the government thinks the public won't over-react too much to it's uncontrolled new spending). A need is a place to live or a car to get to work (when you can't get there by public transport of course :-). Defining NEEDS and WANTS based on your priorities is not realistic and sets yourself up for failure. If your priority is to get that new 50in HDTV before feeding yourself, you're going to have some problems. Montréal is in an economically bad shape and has been for decades. If Montréal has not been affected by the real estate problems, it's because it was already completely undervalued for reasons of unfavorable economic climate to businesses (high taxes and high regulation). To improve Montréal's economic favorability, we must invest more in infrastructure aimed at businesses (highways, etc.). Once and only after we receive more revenues from the newly arrived businesses, then we can spend more on public transport projects and we'll be able to pay for that bonaventure tunnel and beautiful above ground project.
  21. GoMontreal
    If this project wouldn't be taking highway away, this project would be near perfect. I love the renderings and the way they've planned stuff. I love this project, but it's a want, not a need. AND don't disconnect the highways!! I think you're wrong in saying that it's going to be only a few extra seconds of wait with the new layout. If I work in the east end and live in, say, Ile des Soeurs, and usually take Bonaventure/Ville-Marie/Notre-Dame to get to work, it's going to add a bunch of lights and therefore more congestion and more time to my commute (and more pollution). The other part that I disagree on is when you say that we need to expand downtown south. Who says? There's plenty of room elsewhere for the expansion of downtown. We WANT to expand downtown towards the canal and make something nice, NEED is nowhere in this equation. And besides, highway or no highway, we can still expand south if the city will give the building height allowances to developers.
  22. GoMontreal
    I appreciate your expertise and all. However, I don't think you should talk down to me as if you're the expert and I know nothing about this. I work in the field and am passionate about transportation infrastructure (all kinds) as well as real estate development and urban planning. Just because I haven't told you what I do for a living, where I work, what I've worked on, the transportation solutions I've dreamed up since I was a teenager, doesn't make you better positioned than me to comment on these projects. My opinion is that urban highways are needed as much as rural and suburban ones are. I don't think highways are beautiful and I wouldn't want to live underneath one. Even if public transport was free for all, highways would still be needed. I think that a better solution to that part of the Bonaventure would have been to make it into a tunnel and connect it to the Ville-Marie. That way, the land above could be used in the same way, or another way but the non-stop (no red lights) connection could have been completed instead of taken away. I think the problem is that people always think of themselves and the people that live right by the highway (turcot, bonaventure, whatever) instead of thinking of the economy of the region and traffic circulation. If we had endless amounts of money, I would make all urban highways underground and have a Chicago like system of underground boulevards, but that costs a lot of money and can't always be done. But since that can't always be done doesn't mean we should tear the highways down simply because they are ugly! Look around and you'll see that often, cities that have the best highway system (complemented by other transportation systems) are the most economically prosperous. I once overheard a wise uncle say 'They should make the sidewalks go where people walk!'
  23. GoMontreal
    Cataclaw, svp ne prends pas ceci comme insulte. Je suis sure que tu seras pas d'accord mais je vais le dire quand même. La gestion de la circulation ne devrait pas être dans la main des urbanistes, ni d'architecte ou fonctionnaire. La gestion de la circulation devrait retourner dans les mains des ingénieurs et si jamais ça l'arrive, on aurait beaucoup moins de bouchons de circulation, beaucoup moins de configuration ridicule, et beaucoup moins de pollution causé par ces bouchons, causé par les mauvaises décisions de ces bien-pensants. Les ingénieurs en circulation ont le devoir d'enlever les obstacles à la circulation fluide, tandis que les urbanistes ont le devoir de rendre la ville belle. Malheureusement, une autoroute ne sera jamais belle, donc arrêtez d'essayer de la rendre. It's a necessary evil that makes the economy run. Without it, you have no money to spend on making the rest of the city beautiful.
  24. GoMontreal
    Malek fait partie des Amis de la logique. Il est mauvais de détruire une autoroute dans a peu près tout les cas (biensur si elle n'est pas remplacée par une nouvelle qui est meilleure et avec une plus grande capacité).
  25. GoMontreal
    Tu vois pas que toute les entreprises qui ont des employés syndiqués ont de la misère? Partout où tu va, s'il y a des syndiqués, compte les jours pour cette compagnie là. C'est sur qu'il y a des compagnies comme Bombardier qui recoivent constamment des subventions, donc ça fausse la donnée et ça donne l'impression qu'ils sont rentable. Les syndicats, c'est simple, ça ruine une compagnie, il n'apporte rien de bien.
×
×
  • Créer...