[Let's Talk about Bill Gates]

I would love it if Bill Gates controlled the world. 
Pretty sure he'd do a much better job than whoever is in charge now.

[Ford should merge the public and Catholic school systems]

In terms of feasibility:

1) Trudeau wouldn't have a problem with it. He is the least Catholic PM we have ever had, including the guy who put the communion wafer in his pocket. 
2) As others have pointed out, the Constitutional protections could be gotten around, if there is an appetite for it - it would just take longer. 
3) Ford would never do it. He's the front runner for Christian votes right now, and he isn't going to screw that up, and send them to the Liberals.
4) Just because 51+% support the idea, doesn't mean it makes political sense. That's not how politics works.

In terms of economics:

1) Yes, one study said there would be huge savings. This isn't gospel. (See what I did there?)
2) Other amalgamations (that promised big savings) actually ended up costing more.
https://fcpp.org/pdf/FB036AmalgamationCostSavingsIllusory.pdf
3) The main cost is the cost of educating the students. The administrative costs are a drop in the bucket comparatively. 
4) There's already decent cooperation between Catholic and TDSB in terms of bussing etc. 
5) There would be a tremendous upfront cost of amalgamation - as well as community division. Do some schools shut down? Do the boundaries get redrawn?

In terms of fairness:

1) There is something inherently wrong with one religion getting government-funded schools and not the others.
2) Tory suggested funding all the religions, which is the main reason he lost the Provincial election after leading. 
3) The current public school system could really be called the 'atheist' school system, where all symbols of religion are forbidden, and Christian traditions are being stamped out - carols, Christmas trees etc. Religious children are essentially told to 'keep it in the closet'
4) So, transforming all schools into secular schools seems fair if you're an atheist, since your beliefs will be upheld at the expense of all others. 
5) Instead, they should look at expanding the faiths in the Catholic schools - to include other religions - so that there are religious and secular schools.

 

[We all are racists]

I understand the parallel that you guys are drawing, but there's something that you are overlooking:

All of those groups - blacks, LGT, Aboriginals etc, have a history of being oppressed - and generally by whites. 
They are also much smaller (at least in North America), than the white population. 

Instead of celebrating whiteness, you can celebrate your German, Polish, Italian, Irish, English, Scottish, Danish etc ancestry. 
But to take all those cultures together, and call them white, and celebrate that, seems exclusionary, because whites make up such a large percentage of the North American population. 

 

[Federal Conservatives lead in new Ipsos poll]

The sheen has worn off Trudeau Jr. 
And his bag of tricks seems to only contain feel-good announcements, oversimplified vilification of his detractors and contrived outrage at the most minor of sleights.  

[Would you support a referendum on unilateral free trade?]

Anyone who believes a referendum should be used to determine economic policy puts far too much faith in the general populous. 

[The Great Immigration Debate]

 

On 6/28/2018 at 11:19 AM, paxrom said:

As you are all aware immigration is currently a hot subject and can be considered political poison for those in office.

This issue stems back many generations since immigrants first settled here from Europe and every where else since. 

Each wave of immigrants left a distinct mark on American society and way of life. Some for better some for worse, but mostly better. 

By in large, immigrants are just seeking a better opportunity, the pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. The American dream. This has been true for every wave of immigrants coming here. Unless of course you're a slave.

I would like to hear what are your thoughts on immigration, specifically, who, how and where.

 

 

 

Quote

Immigration is a much more complex issue than the millions of protesters realize. No country that is even moderately succesful is going to open up their borders to unlimited immigration. This is for many reasons:

1) To limit criminal elements from getting in. If there is an arrest warrant out for a person in their country, we do not want them to simply be able to slip over the border.
2) To control the number of immigrants. Each country has a plan on how quickly they want to grow, and setting the target at 1% per year can still allow a decent amount of immigrants and refugees into the country, without overwhelming our infrastructure. 
3) To protect our security benefits. If we are to extend pensions, health care, education that we have all paid into for years, many countries would simply dump their poor and ill on our doorstep for us to look after. This will erode our pensions and health care significantly for everyone in the country. 

So, the idea of restricting illegal immigration makes sense. It allows us to find the right balance of skilled migrants, refugees, and family. Without restricting illegal immigration, it either means that we take random immigrants that have not been vetted instead of people who have gone through the legal process properly. Or it means that we blow through our targets. 

 

Quote

 

 

 

[Thank You, Trudeau part 2]

On 2/20/2018 at 8:03 AM, Thinkinoutsidethebox said:

There's all this whining and crying about women not being represented in publicly traded companies but we are not interested in treating women equally in politics? 

Which is it? Do you want women treated equally in politics? Or do you want 50% women in politics? You can't have both. 

[Whites need not apply]

I think I prefer the openness, as opposed to companies that don't come out and say they aren't hiring a white male candidate, and waste everyone's time.

[Thank You, Trudeau part 2]

Not a fan of Trudeau, but Shapiro comes across looking like an ass here.

Quote: "The guy's only famous because his dad was Gary Trudeau."

[Cannabis]

On 12/18/2017 at 3:53 PM, Boges said:

Decriminalization is probably the best course. 

The price is important because without a competitive price, the black market won't go away. 

Disagree.

The government needs to charge enough to cover:

- profits for the provincial government
- profits for the federal government
- profits for the producers, and their costs covered.
- generous salaries and benefits to all government employees involved in the sale and distribution.
- extra money to pay for drug rehab programs etc, to put a good spin on things,

So, based on that, they'll need to have a high price, which they can maintain by ensuring some fentanyl slips into the black market supply, so that people will feel more comfortable going to the MCBO instead of the local drug dealer. It worked for alcohol. You could get illegal moonshine for $5 a bottle, but do we know anyone who does that?

 

[Cannabis]

On 12/14/2017 at 1:07 AM, Flint said:

I don't believe for one moment that the legalization of this drug will benefit my country in any way, shape, or form to create a more informed and aware populace of who we are and final end.

If that's what we're using to decide what should be legal, then it follows that we should also ban alcohol, junk food and video games. 

[Workplace Misconduct: Is there some guide for men to follow?]

On 12/4/2017 at 11:34 PM, bcsapper said:

If you wouldn't do it to your mother, don't do it to your colleague.

An oversimplification, that if followed could get you fired. 

Would I ask my mother for a hug? yes. Co-worker? No.
Would I compliment my mother, if she changed her hair, bought a new outfit? yes. Co-worker? No.
Would I ask my mother to lunch, and buy her drinks? yes. Co-worker.? No.
Would I make a joke that has some element of sex in front of my mother? Yes. Co-worker? No.

 

[Canada's Third World Health Care System]

On 11/28/2017 at 10:55 AM, Argus said:

Why do we put up with this crap? How many years now have we endured a shortage of doctors so that people have to scramble and work through contacts and wait months trying to get a GP? So they have to wait months and months to see a specialist? So they have to wait hours and hours and hours in the ER when they have an emergency situation? Why do we put up with such disorganized, yet expensive health care systems?

In Ottawa, our cheerful (Liberal) mayor spends tens of millions opening foot bridges and bicycle paths and arts courts but we can go hours and hours without a single ambulance or paramedic available because he doesn't think spending money on ambulances and paramedics will get his face in the paper. In Ontario our corrupt premier spent tens of billions rescheduling loans in order to temporarily lower electricity prices in the runup to an election next year - just to make herself look good. Mr. Selfie at the federal level sends billions overseas to try to buy a security council seat, spends billions importing goat herders from the desert who will be on welfare most of their lives, and grandly doubles the number of senior immigrants coming in every year who will need extensive use of a health care system they never contributed a dime to.

Here's what a study comparing our wait times to that of other countries found.

Ability to get a same or next-day appointment when sick: Worst
Ability to get after-hours care (without resorting to visiting an emergency department):  Second-worst
Wait for treatment in the emergency department: Worst
Wait to see a specialist: Worst
Wait for elective surgery: Worst

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/barua-why-are-canadas-health-care-wait-times-the-worst

Fair enough. I think as Canadians we grow up thinking we have such a better system for the US that it becomes unpatriotic to question anything about it. 
But yes, our health care system has been lagging behind and there are a few reasons for it. 

1) Paul Martin dumped a lot of health care responsibility from the Federal government to the provinces, while bragging about running surplus budgets. Then we eliminated all of those surpluses by cutting taxes. 

2) The various doctors organizations control the number of doctors admitted to medical school each year, even though there are many more qualified students who could easily become doctors. While they claim it's about quality, we all know it's about keeping doctor's wages at a premium. 

3) There's a desperate need to keep everything under the public sphere, when many parts of it could be handled by the private sector. This means that we get to pay generous union government wages, benefits and pensions to even the most mundane jobs that only barely intersect the health care industry.

 4) Big pharma gets the government to pay for very expensive drugs, even though there are cheaper alternatives. Phizer is currently running a campaign to tell Canadians to force the government to pay for more expensive name brand drugs, instead of the generic ones, which are basically the exact same drug. 

 

[Government to pay LGBTQ $100 million]

"The Trudeau government has earmarked more than $100 million to compensate members of the military and other federal agencies whose careers were sidelined or ended due to their sexual orientation, The Canadian Press has learned."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/100-million-apology-gay-purge-victims-1.4421921

Now, on the surface it seems asinine. But if the money is being used to settle a variety of lawsuits which would have had the same result plus plenty of time and money being wasted in the courts, it may actually make financial sense. 

The bigger problem is the constant barrage of lawsuits and handouts to aggrieved groups 20+ years later. The fact of the matter is that our values change from generation to generation.Will the government be sued for not allowing gay marriages? Will they be sued for allowing discrimination against trans people in housing and employment? Will they be sued for not allowing people to use their preferred pronouns on all correspondence? Fifty years from now, will bigamists and incestuous couples be suing the government because they weren't allowed to be married/because they were imprisoned?

We need to put a statute of limitations on the egregious lawsuits that all taxpayers are on the hook for, as values change over the years, and we look back twenty years ago, and realize some of the things we did were wrong. 

[People`s Guarantee - Patrick Brown]

1 hour ago, ?Impact said:

Do you have a quote where Wynne said that?

Brown does have a track record of being socially conservative. He has voted against same sex marriage, and against a women's right to choose (motion 312 in 2012) while he was a federal MP. He also circulated a letter promising to scrap the sex education curriculum last year during the Scarborough-Rouge River byelection. He has tried very hard in the past year to change his image to be socially progressive, but his legacy lingers on.

It's a bit disengenuous to say that he voted against a woman's right to choose. 

"M-312 called for the formation of a committee "to review the declaration in Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth"."

Really not the same thing at all. Not sure if you're just parroting Liberal talking points or you're being intellectually dishonest. 

[Election Signage]

Election signs serve three purposes:

1) Increase brand awareness for the candidate. This means if the voter is indifferent at the ballot box, they'll most likely vote for the candidate that they have heard of. Additionally, the candidate will be better received when canvassing, when people are already familiar with their name.

2) Potential supporters are more likely to volunteer for, or donate to, someone who they are familiar with, as well as someone who seems very active. The big supporters always prefer to back a winner, because they are more likely to wield power at the end of an election. 

3) Letting people know which parties are in the race. If a casual voter sees that most of the signs are predominantly two parties, they will assume the other parties don't have a chance, and will therefore, vote for one of the two parties with the most signs. No one wants to waste their vote. 

[People`s Guarantee - Patrick Brown]

He doesn't need to be Tim Hudak. 

Conservative voters are going to vote for him anyways. He doesn't need to pander to them.
These policies are intended to attract the red tory voters, and given the disdain voters currently have for Wynne, a leftist Conservative, should capture the majority of Liberal-Conservative swing voters.

[Proportional Representation Discussion]

Our 'democracy' is already fairly tenuous.

The party already has too much control over which candidates get accepted. In addition to having unelected people determine who is acceptable and who is not, to run in the nomination process, the party can also ignore the internal election, and simply appoint someone to run in the riding.

The nomination process generally involves being well known in the community and having many deep-pocketed friends. 

So, the idea of giving parties even more power, to simply create the party candidate lists, and put them in office. so that the top X (based on their share of PR vote), get their seats, gives the parties far too much power, and will ensure partisan hacks are greatly over-represented in Ottawa. Ranked ballots is a much fairer system. 

[Five years later, Colorado sees toll of pot legalization]

I'm not arguing government controlled vs private sector controlled, I'm arguing legal vs illegal, and yes, I think legalized pot will be safer. Eventually, the majority of it will be controlled by big corporations, and those corporations are going to do everything they can to protect themselves from lawsuits. And sure, a carcinogenic pesticide is bad, but not as bad as getting a little fentanyl mixed in. 

https://www.metro.us/news/the-big-stories/fentanyl-laced-pot-causes-panic-massachusetts-ohio

And the 'back alley' reference, is in regards to people having to buy the drug illegally. When something is illegal, you can't just buy it from the store, or order it online. I know the law has been a little gray on that lately, but it wasn't that long ago. And I suspect the government will get even tougher on 'illegal' pot sales once it's for sale in the MCBO's. All they need is a couple stories about people dying from impure pot, and they can have all the justification they need. 

And I think the pot industry will more closely resemble the alcohol industry (at least in Ontario). Yeah, you can make alcohol at home, and sell it for much less than it costs at the LCBO, but who does that. What percentage of the market do illegal bootleggers control? The reason for the underground tobacco market is the loophole with the reserve system, and the politicians fear of doing anything to upset FN special interests. 

[About those tax breaks for the 'rich']

On 11/21/2017 at 8:30 PM, Argus said:

There are a variety of reasons why some people are poor and others are not. Not everyone is created equal in terms of intellect or ability. Not everyone has the same luck. Not everyone has the same perseverance and temperament. The 'poor' in Canada have it better than at any point in history, better than most of the world's population, in fact. There are a number of ways they're kept poor. First, we don't teach our kids much about finance. People, even intelligent, university educated people are preyed on by financial institutions who know they aren't going to read, much less understand those long contracts. They get screwed over by payday loan companies, credit card companies and banks,  insurance companies and car dealers, all engaged in siphoning just a little extra cash each off the unknowing. "Hey, psst, kid, want to try out this seven year car loan? It'll get you high!" Then again, the fact is a lot of people just kind of settle. They have a fatalistic viewpoint, and they keep going to their shitty job every day and complaining about it, but do they take any courses to upgrade their skills and maybe get something better? Mostly, no.

I am the only person I know who is directly involved in the stock market. The bravest of my friends has some generic ETFs in their RRSP that were suggested by their bank (and even then only because I pointed out how much their overpaying on mutual funds). Nobody else owns stock. Why? Because it's a great mystery to them and they're afraid of it. If I say something like "Apple's only 14 times earnings" they'll look at me like I'm speaking Italian. But the rich get richer on the stock market while the poor and middle class shrink away in fear.

There's plenty of reasons why some people are rich and others are poor. It's a combination of luck, talent, hardwork and inheritance. 
But the question is how much should the wealthy share with the poor?

Canada's poor certainly don't have it as bad as the poor of Africa, Asia or Latin America, and I'd prefer to give my money to the really poor, rather than the Canadian poor, who aren't as badly off, as they would like to make us believe. But there is that sense of nationalism that suggests that every Canadian should be given a certain standard of life - that includes health, food, shelter and a little bit more, regardless of what they contribute to society. And from my experience, the people that are reluctant to give to Canada's poor are just as reluctant for Canada to increase foreign aid. 

 

[Five years later, Colorado sees toll of pot legalization]

3 hours ago, PIK said:

http://www.oklahoman.com/article/5571976?access=271bc4bd30590a3723082980c3da7fef

 

Here is what is coming to canada, I wish our government would back off for a while and try and get this right, but they won't.

Difficult situation. Much like alcohol, it makes absolutely no sense to jail people for smoking marijuana. 
We've gone after the sellers for awhile, but wherever there's a market, there's a seller. And ultimately, adults should be allowed to make their own choice.

And since we're going to decriminalize it anyways, it makes a ton of sense for the government to get on board, and make a lot of money from it. It will pay for a lot of government programs and create a lot of new jobs - just as the LCBO does now. Additionally, they can regulate it to ensure that there aren't extra substances sneaking their way into the mix. While there will be some black market competition initially, it will eventually fade out, as people come to trust the regulated product much more than drugs bought from some shady guy in an alley. Additionally, we're going to be hitting the criminal element pretty hard. Drug dealers that weren't paying taxes are gonna have to get real jobs now, and the gangs that controlled the pot trade are gonna take a big hit. 

But is it good for our society as a whole? Absolutely not. But then again, either is alcohol. The arguments to make pot illegal could just as well be used against alcohol. The only difference is we're more familiar with booze - and we seem to accept the added deaths, fights, and trouble that it brings. 

I'm actually quite pleased with the way the Ontario government is handling it. This might be the one thing that saves Wynne in the upcoming election. 

[Will Trudeau Jnr make Morneau resign?]

On 11/21/2017 at 12:05 AM, August1991 said:

To me, the fact that Justin Trudeau has not asked for Morneau's resignation is:

1) Evidence of the utter political incompetence of Justin Trudeau: He either believes that his "rock star" status will earn his votes; or he believes that he's a "good guy" or finally, he believes that he "can leave them in the dust".

(If Justin Trudeau believes any of this, despite his victories in Papineau, he has no idea about what is about to hit him.) 

2) The federal Liberal Party has really bad advisors and are clueless about ordinary voters in central English Canada, and French Canada.

=====

IMHO, despite what polls say now, the federal Liberal Party is unelectable in 2019 with Morneau as federal finance minister.

Scheer knows well that Morneau is Kryptonite to Trudeau's supposed Superman.

Wish that was true, but I think you severely overestimate the average Canadian voter. 
I'll wager that less than 20% of eligible voters know who Bill Morneau, is, and of that 5% only 40% know about the scandal, and of that 40%, only 10% are upset about it. 
And of that 10%, 90% vote for the same party every time anyways. 

[Is this really racism]

I think the problem which TaxMe alludes to is that we are very quick to cast blame where appropriate to various established groups. However, when that same group is responsible for something good, that's often completely ignored as we focus solely on the fault. And it applies at the individual level as well. 

Men do a lot of bad things. No doubt about it. More than women. But they also do a lot of good things. 
The same can be said of white people, the Catholic church, and plenty of other large institutions. 
Take Bill Gates as an example. He's likely the most generous person in history, but there are still people that find nothing but fault with him.

You can be good for an entire lifetime, but a few seconds of bad erases all of it. 

[Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?]

1) The professors overstepped when establishing boundaries for what is, and isn't proper in a University setting. 
2) The references to Hitler/nazis aren't really important here.  It's just used as an obvious example of free speech that should not be allowed, and public figures who should not be discussed in a neutral manner. Fair game. 
3) Firing these three wouldn't do any good. We already have a culture where people demand people to be fired for the tiniest of infractions, besides which the professors were likely just trying to cover their asses, and obey the mandates and dictates passed down by University superiors.
4) Instead of scapegoating these three, and pretending it's an isolated incident, the University should be looking to change its culture and find a better balance between free speech and letting minorities groups feel safe on campus. 
5) The professors are right in that not all speech should be permitted. But to automatically restrict any speech that could potentially hurt the feelings of any identifiable group is taking things too far. 
6) The link between allowing someone to show a TVO debate of people discussing the need to use gender-neutral pronouns, and suicide is absurd.
7) We, as a society, need to stop automatically accepting every claim of harm made by every identifiable group. Some sort of vetting process needs to occur, rather than the ubiquitous fear that engulfs all politicians and government employees, where they can not object to any claim of suffering made. 

[Are we going to admit Universities are producing thin-skinned people?]

6 hours ago, Boges said:

And the only reason Laurier apologized was because Shepherd taped the interaction. 

No. The only reason Laurier apologized was because she taped the interaction, showed it to the press, and Laurier was bombarded by former students cancelling their annual donations. She told them she had the recording, and nobody gave a shit before. This is not the case of a couple rogue professors.

This is the climate being intentionally created at Laurier, and I highly doubt they are alone on this. The mantra seems to be 'we support free speech' as long as that free speech isn't counter to our ideals. 

Also, they seem to be dwelling more on the fact that the professor made an exaggerated comparison to Hitler's speech, than the fact that they accused this young woman of a hate crime, and causing violence against trans students by showing a TVO video.