CdnFox

Well not exactly. It's important to always divide healthcare into two parts - the provisioning and the funding. In Canada currently we mostly have gov't funding AND provisioning of health care. Which means when you're sick you go to a gov't owned hospital with gov't paid nurses and they'll use gov't owned equipment and medicine to treat you. In the states it's both private - you personally pay for a private hospital etc etc. In many countries with "public' healthcare the gov't only pays for the care, it doesn't pay for all the provisioning. It may pay for some, but most countries allow for private provisioning of health care with private facilities providing the services which are paid for out of the public purse. A gov't may not have 30 million kicking around to build a new hospital - BUT private individuals might get together and decide to build one and treat people and the gov't foots that bill. The benefit is that private facilities tend to run cheaper and more efficiently AND most of all private dollars tend to be MUCH faster and better at moving services where they're needed. We already have some of that. But a lot of our issues might go away if we leaned into that a little more.

The kind where voters make bad decisions.

Wow. I can't imagine why

https://nationalpost.com/news/ndp-vote-katie-telford-testify-interference Who whoooooo - so he could continue to back the libs be forever labelled as their lapdog OR he can turn on them but POSSIBLY paint himself into a corner where there's an election that he does not want right now. It'll be interesting to see which way he leaps. If he's smart he'll compel telford. But he does have to be very careful not to be cast as being 'anti chinese'

That's a absolute yes. Sure - you only agree with them if they carry a story that supports your echo chamber and gives you that nice confirmation bias glow. Otherwise they're just fake news you see. they absolutely do that. Remember the story about the christian boys who "assaulted' the first nations leader? Complete fabrication. Yes. A left wing dipshit. Nope - they were fearful of the backlash that advertisers were dropping as a result not wanting to be associated with their lies. And actually he resigned, they didn't even have the balls to fire him. Sure they do - i gave examples.

Wow - talk about spreading hate talk - so conservatives are inferior people as well Practically sub human to listen to you - all full of fear. Scared of every stranger they meet if i recall your other thread. Maybe something should be done about them? What were you saying about sounding like a nazi? As you sit here spouting lies to dehumanize people?

No i can read your lies just fine. Ahhhh so he's an accidental nazi. In the same way that thinking russia sucks isn't nazi propaganda. I mean, most people today think that. The nazis' may have held a similar belief (and did). But it's not nazi propaganda to speak out against russia today just because the nazi's did. THe right likes the jews. It's the left that hates the jews these days. And who was this person who 'recycled' this? And it's not the same theory. And Peterson explains in excruciating detail how he's come to his conclusions today. If there's one thing about the man, he always shows his work. So. What that means is you've been brainwashed into thinking that something that sort of sounds a little like what the nazi's sounded like sort of must therefore be nazi propaganda. The nazi's really pushed taking care of your parents in their old age as well. So... seniors facilites are nazi propaganda i supposed?

No i'm not. I've literally never said that once except as an obvious joke. Those are just the voices in your head talking to you. I said they weren't capitalists because their system incorporates too much state control and ownership. Jezuz - do you EVER say anything truthful? Sure it is. The workers control the means of production through the state. Badda bing badda boom. You didn't think that ALL the workers would actually DIRECTLY control ALL the means of production did you? Call a vote to determine if john over here can take the day off sick? Obviously not. So socialsm means someone managing the workers control. Now we're just talking about who. It certainly doesn't have to be democratic at all, in fact that would just get in the way. Like i said - in the end it's one of the big problems with socialism. Socialists have to pretend socialism is democratic because otherwise they'll have to admit the truth that it's essentially dictatorship by the elites which doesn't sound as good. No you're getting confused again, You're conflating the method of choosing representation with the type of economic model. Neither capitalism nor socalism actually requires democracy (in fact socialism doesn't work well with democracy) - but if you take democracy out of a democratic model then no, you don't have non democratic democracy. So no - it doesn't work with liberal democracy - if you take the democracy out then you've just got liberal dictatorship or oligarchy or whatever you replaced the democracy with.

Ohhh reeaaaally Kid - sorry the facts didn't fit your echo chamber but they all did pretty bad to one degree or another - wtih the s&p down about 20 percent and russel down 22, and that's the average. A lot of stocks within those markets did much worse. Sorry kid -you're bleating ain't getting you any closer. Actually i'm sure many lost more than that. Most people only have 4 or 5 stocks in tehir portfolio and it just takes one or two to tank for them to lose most of their wealth. But - at the end of the day they lost that money. There WAS a stock market crash. People dId suffer significant losses and as i've said i've seen people who lost up to 50 percent themselves. I'm sure there are people who lost more. And some who lost less but the vast majority of people lost. You don't even remember why you were arguing about this do you. You just think as long as you bleat like a goat with it's nuts in a gopher trap somehow you'll magically make a point some day. Unless they invest in an equity stock fund most people don't have money in a lot of different stocks. They have a few. But yes, sure - you're the only intelligent investor around. You know it all - that's why you're so filthy rich right? Right? Hellllooooooo.... And when i do it shows you're lying. Like that one the other day i posted where you said word for word what i claimed you did and you denied EVER saying for sure absolutely 100 percent LOL You just hope nobody will bother. And probably most don't or don't all the time. But i can tell from the 'respect' you get from others that people don't bother because they feel they already know you're not terribly honest. In most cases no - turns out to be worthless. Remember - the majority of investors wind up losing money in the stock market. MOST investors lose money. And it is because MOST stock is traded based on speculation. There's nothing holding up that value. Sorry. But that's why only about 5 - 10 percent actually make money at it. Oh noooo - fiancail report just came out and says we're going into a recession and your company will be severely impacted!! A run on the stock dropped the value by 30 percent!!! Happens. And you've lost all those retained earnings and may sell at a loss if you intend to sell - yet nothing changed. Sorry kiddo - you don't know how stocks work Bit coin is no different in any way than other currency, commodity or stock market investments, It's the same thing, except with a better performance record.

According to you ANY site that carries the story is a fake news site. So basically we're back to you being a dishonest person. Yes or no, was it a fox news story i posted? Your lefty media is even worse. But - in either case none of them actually just print a completely fake story. They may HORRENDOUSLY alter it - as cnn did when they edited the tape in the tavon martin case to make the caller sound racist., but to just fake an entire incident altogether? I mean - left wing journalist brian williams lied about his chopper being shot down but there WAS actually a war going on Your dismissal of this is just cheap and intellectually dishonest. We both know that.

oh my god how thick are you? It's not 'logic' - they didn't call THEMSELVES socialst they called themselves a democratic dictatorship - it's right in their constitution which is why it's funny. Nonsense. The state can simply oversee it on their behalf. That's what happens in the end anyway. Even in a democracy the workers wouldn't actually control the means of production directly, they would vote on who would do it for them. Just take out the 'vote' and you're at the same place. Someone will do it for them. LIke a property manager handling the property for his client. That's what is so insidious about socialism and socialists.

And he's spreading it! !!!!! Ohhh but you're not calling him a nazi - just saying he's Intentionally spreading nazi propaganda on their behalf! Wtihout being one! Well - you're not saying he ISN'T you're just saying we can't prove he is just because he willingly distributes their propaganda!!" Give me a break. You're calling him a nazi and not only is he not a nazi but neither is what he's talking about 'nazi propaganda At least have the balls to say what you're saying instead of trying to dance around it.

Well that sounds like a lie. I did a quick search and there were a number of media sources and his name was in about half. I did find SOME blogs but not many. And that's first page. I doubt your google skills are THAT much worse than mine. And doing further searches with his name gives more details. So instead of addressing the fact you were WRONG you'd rather just stick your head in the sand and pretend the world is flat. Do you wonder why people respect the far left less and less every day? I think you do more than it does. Sorry - but you're just dismissing it because you don't like it. There's no indication that paper plants entirely fake stories. Unless you have evidence that suggests it's not true then you're just being dishonest.

But it IS a democracy! Says so right in their constitution - a democratic dictatorship Joking aside - you don't need democracy for socialism. But the gov't IS the people. And that's no different in a socalist state. You're trying to label things and it's not quite fitting. What we CAN say is it isn't capitalism.

You literally just posted in your previous post it was 33 percent -double your little estimate there That's the problem with you - when you're wrong you just start pretending you didn't say things you very obviously did. If you have to lie to make a point, you haven't got a very good point. That was a harsh crash, many many people lost a huge hunk of their savings. But hey - lie about it some more and maybe the facts will change! Right? Thats how you guys on the left think isn't it No, those are people i've really met. Yours by your own admission are fake. And - the numbers certainly show there's going to be a lot like the ones i met. Ok - so according to you almost half those stocks went down by 50 percent, people own those stocks, but there's no way they could be down about 50 percent. Math isn't your thing is it. You're really just making yourself look dumber every post. Why are you doing that? Well no, that's not the only market where stocks went down that much. And tech stocks are very popular. Sorry kiddo - it's pretty obvious you're just crybabying at this point. You. And other liberals for that matter. Oh wait let me guess - having been proven wrong you will claim yet again you never EVER said that bitcoin was worse off than stocks especially compared with markets other than Nasdaq. Sigh. You're so predictable. Rats, you were right there. my mistake. Well even a broken clock Nope, in a lot of cases there isn't. Intellectual property that could become useless overnight, etc etc. And it's mostly based on speculation, not asset value. Nope. You're not entitled to them if they're retained. Go ahead -buy a share in microsoft and walk into the office and demand your share of the profits they didn't declare dividends on and your share of the assets. Not how it works. Which is not what you previously claimed at all. And most of that is true. The boc has done a lot of damage to our dollar which now buys less. Crypto being normalized would indeed reduce the central bank's influence. And Canadians should have choice Most of the world's currencies are capable of swinging that much under the right conditions. Sorry to burst your bubble. And honestly the statement doesn't even make sense - it might drop that much against the us dollar but far less against the canadian if the canadian is dropping as well and a reminder - it's still worth more than it was in 2019. which is more than we can say for the Canadian dollar. Normalizing it will go a long way to remove the volatility So - there you go. Sorry punkin You were wrong again It works fine and will only get better - IF that's what people choose to use personally. I realize as a liberal you're not fond of people having choice but, sorry - they should. It works just fine as an alternate currency same as any other currency and just like any other currency the more it's used the more it stabilizes.

They. Are. Not. The. Same. It's like saying you put a screw above a bolt and nut. They do different jobs - they are used in different places for different things. Your problem is you inappropriately conflate them. And to be honest that weakens your position because that's a sign of bad judgement, which calls into question your judgement regarding the scriptures

Not currently. They throw in 'hate speech' which is basically just saying you don't like something. Well that is always the risk. Having said that we do have our rights relatively well defined by the courts and such a law would require that someone else demonstrate how your speech hurts their rights to a judge, and that's a little less frivolous. But sure - it has the potential to be a problem.

I would tend to argue that it should go to the point where you're either putting someone's life at risk, infringing on a right of theirs, or advocating for harm or illegal activty

The term has been used, i wouldn't call it common use. There is a 'state of the nation" or 'state of the union' address that happens in Canada and the us and that term may get used slightly more. But i've certainly heard the term ship of state used in the past. Of course - there's only so many times you want to hear your country be compared to the titanic before you tune it out

Well thats actually considered the interior, the lower mainland would be more like hope/chilliwack out through greater vancouver and out to squamish. But pretty close - the okanagan isn't much of a car ride from me. No. No it does not. We chronically go through cycles of over spending which is then followed by periods of underspending to correct. The weird thing is we time it in such a way that the overspending tends to happen during GOOD times and the underspending then comes during bad times. The other way around would at least make SOME sense - but for whatever reason if the economy is good we tend to elect tax and spend gov'ts and when the economy sucks and we SHOULD be borrowing we have to tighten our belts. That's democracy for ya

Nobody believes you tried even for a second. It's easy enough to find the story is true. You don't need the name. You're just desperate to try to avoid the truth, "GIVE ME ONE EXAMPLE!!! " "here's an example.' "UHHHHHH UUMMMM er .. NOT FAIR!!! " Right. Go have your cookie and your nap. Oh - and your own link shows that that paper is not terribly bias. Right of center, not extreme or even right wing. So your claim that they're too bias to use is also in the garbage can.

NO, sorry but yet again you are incorrect. And i think i touched on this before - apologies if i'm remembering that wrong. China allows some individual ownership of it's industries BUT the gov't is SO heavily involved and controlling of the industries that it is far closer to socialsm than capitalism. As you say - it's not about the name its about the reality. THe state is required to own either directly or by proxy major shares in everything and control exactly what can and cannot be produced and what can or cannot be exported or imported. Capitalism requries a free market. in the real world nobody does pure capitalism because it would have issues, they have a slightly regulated free market to ensure a level playing field. The chinese have no free market. SO what they've got is a socialist economy with capitalistic elements. VS something like ours which is capitalistic with socialistic elements. But you coudln't say china had a capitalist economic model.

Define it yourself. You will anyway - whatever definition i provide you'll claim its something else

Well then i guess there's no nazis anymore because these days nobody thinks its the jews. No, you're not. That's not how logic works. In fact - based on what you've said it wouldn't even be CMCT anymore. It's like saying if you think the gov't should have some control or regulation over industry then you must be spreading communist propaganda because communists think the people should own production. NO - that's not how it works. It's just SO wrong it's disappointing that i'd need to explain it.