-
Posts
27,611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
287
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by CdnFox
-
-
Just now, myata said:
No. The problem is clear, even obvious: absence of any meaningful checks on majority governments that have total control over majority houses
Heh - i was once young and foolish myself
(i'm saying that fondly not derogatory)
Ok
i doubt you'll come up with anyhting i haven't heard of or thought of but lets test your supposition out. Describe a model that doesn't have those weaknesses and is still democratic to a resonable degree and lets see how you do.
-
29 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No it isn't. It's more about actual governance, that however brings you into closer contact with the political side of things.
Getting hit by a car may bring you into closer contact with it, but its' not the same as driving it.
We're discussing how to make a difference to the political parties and what they put forward. So that's something very different and you can have an effect there
29 minutes ago, eyeball said:I've made a difference governing not politicing.
there's politics in all governance, so either your kind of pulling our leg or you're trying to split hairs.
And the liberals have shown us just how bad things can get if you have politics without governance.
In any case we're talking about political parties and shaping and making them work. And clearly you have not been involved with that process. Trying to pass off working with them from the outside as the same thing is simply not real.
If you're unhappy with your political options then ACTUALLY get involved. You CAN make a big difference. If you don't then you have to live with whatever scraps others leave for you and for some people that works out just fine, but it doesn't sound like it's working for you.
I know that it takes time and nobody has any today but it is important that you do your bit for democracy. Democracy is a hell of a lot more than just showing up to vote once every 4 years or so. For the people to govern, the people have to govern. And that means participating.
-
3 minutes ago, eyeball said:
No, the intent wasn't to make the governed the opposition to the government however I do note that no matter who wins the government always gets in.
That's actually a pretty good line
-
50 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Don't be a moreon.
ROFLMAO - well nothing makes your point like misspelling that when you're using it
Maybe pick a different word if you can't spell it and look slightly less dense
51 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:We've all heard that one before. "This will be the last war, the war to end all wars", etc.
That is YOUR position. "This will be the last war if we just let them win!!!"
Nope. Letting them win will encourage MORE war, not less.
52 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:This war did not need to happen but was instigated by third parties.
It did not need to happen, and was instigated by putin and him alone. Did he attempt to negotiate with these 'other parties'? Nope. Did he even suggest he was considering war if they couldn't come to an agreement? Nope. Did he deny he was considering war even as he moved his troops up? Yep. Did he blame third parties for the war? Nope - it was to 'get the nazis'. Did he offer to stop the war if they agreed not to join nato or anything? Nope. No negotiation at all and flat out refusal for quite a while, then 'mayyyyybeee we'll talk' when he started to lose.
This was absolutely not instigated by third parties. He did not need to do this at all. Except that he wanted Ukraine in his possession again.
57 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:There is one way this will be the war to end all wars
Of course not. But it will mean less war by far and less likelyhood of a nuclear exchange by leaps and bounds.
But you don't really give a crap about anyone or nuclear war.
You just want to see russia win and the US lose. And if 10 or 20 thousand innocent women and children have to die for that - oh well. Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, right tovarhish?
-
17 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:
And here's the proof.
Yeah - no. Those papers also sold ads to the liberals. And ndp. And so did every paper. That's just the papers the conservatives chose to buy ads in.
You have a very poor understanding of how the news media and politics work if you thought that during an election ANY paper would refuse ads for a political party. The liberals would have been able to buy the same ad if they'd had any money left.
That was a COMPLETE swing and a miss. Wow.
Edit - and those ads sure turned out to be true didn't they
The liberals certainly did cost us. Huge. Truth in advertising.
-
3 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:
Birds of a feather…Not looking forward to Biden’s visit and love-in with Trudeau. Biden must know there’s blood in Trudeau’s water over China.
Perhaps he's come to deliver his new orders from china/
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Army Guy said:
Do you really think left are interested in trust, maybe the center and right but the others come on now, they have proven that in 3 elections now... and somehow you think all thats going to change , thats funney.
Well the hard left isn't - trust isn't necessary when facts don't matter to you, if someone betrays you then you just pretend they did you a favour
If justin slept with their wives the left would scream 'thank GOD, i was afraid he woudln't".
But most people aren't really hard left. And the ones that lean left start to get preeeeety serious when they can't afford food, or a place to live. And if someone is fixing that and says i can do even more, trust me. and some one else makes promises that they can't be trusted to deliver - people cling to the person they can trust.
It's when things are great and they think elections don't matter than trust isn't a factor. When shit gets real then trust and talent become big deals.
-
26 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Doesn't change the fact what I said is true and that you're a war mongering idjit
Doesn't change the fact that repeating a lie doesn't make it true
LOL - listening to you repeat it so desperately like that, it sounds like you're just wishing somehow it could be true and praying to the communist gods that someone will believe you even if it isn't
Geez dude - everything you said was disproved. Have some dignity and don't wallow in it.
-
24 minutes ago, athos said:
Stop wasting time arguing. It is so obvious that Russia will win and the evil Anglo-Khazarian imperial mafia will be defeated either with Russia or by God. A new world order is on the horizon.
So. That whole 'sanity' thing wasn't working for you i take it.
Russia has already lost. Even if the ukrainan resistance collapsed today, the russians have lost an insane amount of manpower and critical amount of tanks and aircraft and ships and gear, much of which they just can't replace easily or timely, and their prestige has been absolutely slashed to ribbons. And even if they did take the ukraine right now they'd face insurgency that would make afghanistan look like a walk in the park, backed by the latest US weapons and support. a few years of that and they pull out in disgrace. And that's their best case scenario
There's really nothing russia can do to turn this into a victory at this point.
Meanwhile the allies and nato have all gotten to test out all their weapons for free, gotten old stock out of their arsenals and learned a bunch of new tactics and will be replenishing themselves with the latest and greatest while russia languishes and is a militarily depleted paper tiger. They will have knocked russia out of the game for a few decades to come. Between sanctions and a struggling economy russia won't do much better than north korea.
They lost this hard. What a huge error on their part.
-
28 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
Bzzz... I don't have time to swat flies. Everything I said is verifiable.
Waaaaaaah - i don't have time to change diapers. Everything you said has already been verified as being wrong. By several people.
So there you go.
-
7 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:
I explained how and why this war started, and it had nothing to do with peace.
No you excused the war with dishonestly and lies. Even russia never claimed it was about nato. And nato wanted nothing to do with ukraine.
The war started because putin wanted a war - and he wanted a war because he got crimea so easily that he thought he could bag ukraine with no interference as well.
Simple truth. And you want to cheer him on and praise him for it. While suggesting that even tho it didn't work last time if we just give him what he wants it's BOUND to work this time!!!! Appeasing his type hasn't worked a single time in 3000 years of human history but this time for sure.
Just as the blood of the dead in poland in ww2 and the subsequent dead of that conflict were on the hands of chamberlin and others like him, the blood of this conflict is 100 percent on putin and people like you who encourage him.
-
2
-
-
25 minutes ago, suds said:
This type of message board that we're on now is considered social media.... right?
I shall forego the obvious joke that some days it's more 'antisocial media', but go on
25 minutes ago, suds said:Illegal hate speech is already regulated by the criminal code.... right? But if Bill C-11 passes with the inclusion of social media content, would the CRTC as regulators be allowed to regulate legal speech on these types of boards? Call it whatever you want, misinformation/disinformation, political speech, none-politically correct speech, or whatever. What could they do, how far could they go, before they start treading on our rights to free speech?
Well there's the problem. How far it could reach is a little unclear. The language certainly would allow for this board to be affected with the proper regulations passed. That was the big fight - putting in a clause that prevented controlling content created by private individuals not for profit. The board could well be forced to participate in that and censor us.
Remember that a large part of this law was to stop the spread of 'misinformation'. And the biggest purveyors of misinformation in Canada right now is the liberal party. Remember when the convoy was funded mostly by americans and had been started by the Russians?
There is very real chance that they may make certain subjects or viewpoints 'unlawful'. Remember during the us election when biden's notebook had been found and all the media platforms rallied and said "you're not allowed to talk about that or you'll be banned' trying to claim it was 'misinformation' which hadn't been 'verified'? (of course it had been). Imagine that on a larger scale.
They could literally tell platforms that talk about 'chinese interference' is not allowed because it's racist disinformation. And anyone posting that must be banned immediately or they risk a fine. or to be shut down entirely.
They keep saying they woudln't use it that way. But - they didn't take the clauses out that allow for it either.
-
1 hour ago, OftenWrong said:
Yep. They've all swallowed the Big Brother slogan " War is peace".
And you've yet to explain how peace didn't stop a war that we now have. Let me guess - you were against fighting back over Crimea because if we just let the russians have it that'll be the end of it.
Hope you can get enough soap to wash that blood off your hands.
-
1 hour ago, Nationalist said:
As I said...your pushing for war. Thus you're a war monger.
Yes - but repeating a lie doesn't make it true no matter how many times you say it.
Putin was the one pushing for war. You support putin.
I'm pushing for this to be the last war. I didn't want it, i didn't start it, i don't support the people who did want it and did start it, and i want to make sure it doesn't happen again.
There is no possible justification for your support of a person who started the war, killed innocent people. and attempted to overthrow a neighbor to expand his empire. And there is NO reconcilling that position with any kind of support for peace.
It would seem that you prefer war - provided the russians start it and the allies let them win without much of a fight.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Benz said:
At that moment, people voted for the "devil they know". The time spent in the opposition made Harper look less devil, and or, more familiar and therefore look less dangerous by the people that were not ready to vote for him. My point is that I think the same is going on with Poilièvre.
A very real possibility.
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
I guarantee he'd win if he could make trust the issue. I fail to see how we can solve any other problem challenging us without it.
And it's only getting worse.
Well that's not really possible. The reason we have trust issues is because everyone promises but no one delivers. So what can you 'promise' that resolves that?
"trust" could well be a platform plank in the election that follows his win, where he can say 'see what i said and that's what i did'.
Harper earned a lot of trust that way - for better or worse. That's what people tended to say about him - "the man always does what he says he's going to, whether you want him to or not"
-
1 hour ago, eyeball said:
Been there done that, I'm Involved. It isn't changed a thing. I've been on our area planning commission for nearly 40 year and I've seen a few people move on to become MLA's.
I recall when it was decided to hold our meetings via Zoom when COVID hit and within hours tongues were wagging and emails about dictatorship were flying.
The mistrust has only gotten worse.
A local planning commission is not the same as working on an MP's campaign or serving on their policy boards or the like, or attending political conventions.
And if you've been at it 40 years and aren't making any difference, youj're really not doing it right. It's not hard to make a difference even if it's not everything you want.
-
56 minutes ago, Benz said:
I must admit that is a good one. I think he has a serious chance to win the next election and maybe align 2 mandates in a row. Like Harper did before he eventually won, he is getting the experience and more familiar to the voters.
Well harper had it rough - not only a brand new leader but a brand new party and barely more than a year to get it all organized before he faced paul martin the first time. And he still held him to a minority
So for sure PP's got it a little easier in that regard and he's picking up some steam. He has a solid chance of winning and a decent chance at a majority so fingers crossed.
-
11 minutes ago, eyeball said:
I have 4 grandkids, three of which are Chinese. Their other grandparents fled China 50 years ago.
Not voting for a Liberal won't mean squat to conservatives unless I vote for one of theirs and I have no expectation it would change anything if I did.
The only thing that would make me vote Conservative is if they acknowledge that the biggest issue facing Canada, bar none, is public mistrust in our government which stems from the fact that our government simply doesn't trust us.
In all sincerity,
Voting is arguably the LEAST important step in the democratic process. And it's not where you want to be sending messages as a rule. Or at least not important ones.
Voting is more like pressing the 'check out' button after you've filled your cart.
If you want to make change, you can. It means meeting with and talking to your local rep, it means attending policy conventions. You can also work with like minded people to create a united front to lobby the party for whatever you feel is important. And this is true regardless of party. You pick the one that's closest to you and then tune it as best as possible.
You should have the party you want with the priorities you want and that's how you get it. And i would support you doing that even if it's a party i disagree with.
If you wait till voting time to make your voice heard you'll never get anything other than what other people picked for you. Like the saying goes - the world is run by those who show up, so show up.
-
47 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:
Yup.
But Harper increasingly did a lot of bad things. He needed to be removed.
Like what? I can think of policy you may or may not agree with but what 'bad things' did he do?
-
1 hour ago, suds said:
- Liberals reject senate amendment limiting the scope of CRTC powers over online content (in particular, including the EXCLUSION of social media content from the bill).
True.
1 hour ago, suds said:- "After the bill passes, the government will issue a policy direction to the CRTC on how to implement the legislation. It has refused to make that document public until after Bill C-11 becomes law."
Also true.
1 hour ago, suds said:Does this sound familiar to anyone? It sounds a lot like the Canadian version of 'you have to pass the bill in order to see what's in the bill'. Or rather in this case.... what the liberals true intentions are. If I were a senator, i would not pass this bill. No Canadian should support this bill. This is not what I would call open or transparent.
I can see why you feel that way - but to be honest this is not entirely uncommon and it puts the senate in a pickle for a few reasons, let me explain:
Broadly speaking we have two things in law in Canada - Acts and Regulations. Acts are the actual laws. They are an Act of parliament Or an Act of the legislature or what have you but they are the law. They cannot be changed easily and require ANOTHER act of parliament to make changes.
However - an Act can create 'Regulatons'. A Regulation must have an Act which authorizes it (called the enabling act) but once an Act enables the regulation, a regulation can be changed anytime without changing the ACT itself. Parliament will not vote on the regulation. This is because regulations frequently have to change. Fishing and hunting regulations - you wouldn't want an act of parliament every time you changed how many salmon someone could catch.
It is very common for an Act to be approved without the regulations published or in place. So "how the act will be applied" comes later. This is an everyday thing, so how does the senate raise a fuss about that now'? They can't very well say "sure we passed the last 1000 bills like that but not this one".
And the libs are exploiting that - putting some of the application into the regulations and saying 'well of course you don't get to see the regulation before you pass the act, we never do that".
The senators are ONLY really allowed to look at what's in the ACT - not the regulations it will enable. Those can change at any time anyway in accordance with the act.
I agree this is NOT transparent. I agree that this is a horrible bill and everyone should be against it. I agree that the liberal party has many terrible people in it that want to take your rights and this bill is an example.
But that doesn't make it easy for the senators. They can't vote on what they can't see, and at the end of the day if there's an abuse of the bill it's up to the VOTERS to deal with it by crushing that party.
This bill is so bad the senate may still shoot it down, but not for that specific reason.
-
20 minutes ago, Nationalist said:
I'm advocating for peace.
You're not advocating for peace. That's been discussed a great deal and not just by me. You're advocating for further conflict.
Those who are standing up to the violent bully putin are advocating for peace. Those who support putin are advocating for war - he started the war entirely.
21 minutes ago, Nationalist said:anyone who is not in favour of NATO entering this war,
Not one person has advocated for nato entering the war here. Not one. Hell even outside of this discussion not even Zelanski has been suggesting nato should get involved.
If you have to lie to make your point, then you probably don't have much of a point.
23 minutes ago, Nationalist said:I think Putin is a good representation of Russian leadership
That would be the guy who started the war. You praise him, call him a good leader for the russians, then claim to be anto-war. That's a direct contradiction.
You don't fear nuclear war in the slightest. It's become obvious it's a cover for your pro-russian position. "OH We should support russia because then there will be no nuclear war". What a load of crap.
Your problem is you speak the quiet part out loud too often without thinking. You praise putin, you suggest Canada should be their ally not the states. You suggest that Putin was justified in this war. You pretend he wasn't trying to capture all of ukraine etc.
And THEN when you get called on that, you try to backtrack and cover it by claiming you JUST want PEACE!!! (For god's sake, think of the children!!!) THAT"S why you think all those things. Why it was ok for Putin to bomb and kill innocent kids and women and attack a neighbor who did nothing to them.
Honestly. Those things are not reconcilable. It's clear you're not being honest. Peace is not your biggest concern. If it was you'd have an answer to the chamberlin effect issue.
-
8 minutes ago, suds said:
Thank you, that clears things up a bit. Although I would prefer the senate stick to their guns on this one.
I think we all would, and depending on the changes they may. However - as i noted it's always got to be in the back of their minds that while they DO have the authority to do what they believe is best for Canada, the liberals have an actual mandate from the people and they do not. And if the people don't like the bill they can always vote them out and vote in a gov't that will scrap it.
SO i doubt they'll be adamant. However - they COULD send it back again with additional minor tweaks and stall it more. That does send a message to the libs and to the press, it's embarassing.
At the end of the day, justin is considering proroguing parliament to get away from the questions about china so it's very possible the bill will die on the order table. Then the libs will be forced to reconsider it anyway. It boils down to how badly they want it.
-
17 minutes ago, myata said:
Why is this, pretty much all of it, such a tortured, convoluted imitation of a clear and transparent democratic process that was actually thought through and can work? A house of majority employees of a Central Committee with sort of, quasi independent imitation of checks and oversight not really though. I don't want to guess anymore, done thing. If it looks and smells like it doesn't make sense, it cannot make any sense, then may be it doesn't.
Well of course it makes sense. But no matter WHAT model you choose, there are going to be serious pros and cons.
It was done this way originally to remove the 'populism' from the upper house. If you elect senators then they have the requirement to 'look good' to the people to get reelected. As we've seen in the states that can lead to shenanigans. Being appointed for life with no term limit means you can freely stab whomever appointed you in the back if they do something bad.
So that's good right? Unelected for life is best!
Oh - but wait, that means they weren't chosen by the people and the lower house was. Soooo- we really need to defer to the lower house a bit as senators because only they can claim to have an actual mandate from the people. So we can't just block bills we don't like. We COULD do that if we were elected tho.
So elected is better right? Or....
So that's pretty much how all of our politics goes. Every model is an exercise in compromise. If there was an obvious clear solution that was best everyone would be using it.
Right now the senate we have is MODERATELY effective at doing something about really bad bills like this. They've held it up - Trudeau wants to prorogue the house and if he does that delay means the bill has to be introduced from scratch and may suffer the same fate if it's not altered.
I think it would be better if senators were elected for longer terms rather than appointed for life but like i said that comes with issues too.
Every system does lean on the people sooner or later to make good decisions.
CSIS: Liberal MP is alleged Chinese agent, Trudeau ignored warnings
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted · Edited by CdnFox
Spelling - it said bugs not bucks :)
Not defensive - annoyed. I find that level of "dense" a bit off putting. Seriously, this was pretty bad.
Not only would they - they would be in serious legal trouble if they didn't. Postmedia carried LOTS of ndp and liberal ads.
Never not happened either - can you show me any evidence they tried and were turned down'? NO? thought not.
Any paper will run political ads for any party during an election. it's a very long standing tradition. They're very careful about pricing too so they don't look like they're donating to the campaign.
Every single paper will do that if you pay them. It's not even a 'front page' its just a sort of flyer that goes over their front page. They've done it for other advertizers as well. Got big bucks, you can do that.
Look - you want to have a sane discussion about media bias, that's fine. There's lots of bias in media. But this - this specific example - you have to be 17 different kind of thick to think that's an example of media bias.
FFS dude. PLEASE do a little more research than that.