Jump to content

Michael Hardner

Senior Member
  • Posts

    43,387
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    98

Everything posted by Michael Hardner

  1. 1. 2. That you say we DO know how to run services. 3. The concept isn't wrong but I don't know that the root of the problem is with that. 4. Maybe. I never have to wait more than a few minutes for Manulife, CAA auto service, and others. I suspect some places are managed better than others. 5. Does that explain what has changed ? 6. They also have managers. Lots of them. 7. Oh, you misunderstood my question. The government manages the economy NOW, I mean. Do you want to get rid of that idea ? Keeping in mind that every government on earth manages their economy. Yes, it can be worse. The answer is that it would be an obviously ridiculous exercise to embark on a risky experiment with an essential service.
  2. 1. I'm surprised to read this. 2. Mostly I hear about long wait times for public services, and bad service from our private monopolies. I'll admit it's anecdotal but can anyone really defend CRA wait times (called in a few weeks ago, 2 hours) hospital wait times etc ? 3. Very simple but if wait times lengthen resources and services were finite before that situation and after also. 4. Sometimes wisdom is obvious, other times it is trite I guess. 5. Do you think that the government should be managing the economy ? If not, who ?
  3. All ? No. Support ? It depends. You're working on a mass model here - ie. political polling ie. "How do you FEEL about the changes the government is making to healthcare ? 1- Strongly Agree 2- Agree 3- Neutral 4- Disagree 5- Strongly Disagree" That means that the communication is managed as always. But that also means that you still have the opportunity in there to make things better and educate the public and make the engagement model stronger. The biggest problem, imo, is that we don't know how to run services. Mostly public, but basically service delivery is terrible in Canada almost across the board. Top-down management is the order of the day, and customer response, innovation, improvement ... all of these things suffer.
  4. I have got pretty busy lately so I don't have enough time for the board. But I lived in France and their system was 2-tier and worked well. The thing we have never done well is manage public services. I think it's a culture thing and don't have answers.
  5. Or take it out of the political process, mandate service levels, and hire managers to run things instead of doctors ? There are lot of ideas out there...
  6. Your post rings true. Most angry moments are built on a foundation of economic unrest, too. So he will have to address that foremost imo.
  7. You're lying and you know it. I posted already that the curriculum explicitly prohibits doing thus. You play with the idea of being serious poster, but never quite get there. Back to ignore, sorry.
  8. Yes, I agree that they're the product of a political system that can't produce able candidates.
  9. Is a radical someone who misrepresents the truth or exaggerates? Because I find it hard to sift through and separate real complaints from hysterics. Ex: kids being taught they're oppressors. There are real concerns at the heart of these complaints, but I don't have to waste my posts on threads that are hysterical/exaggerated. Not do I have to spend my time re-investigating claims already disproven. But enjoy your cry.
  10. Initial Western democracy assumed a public and a free press to cover important issues, that were comprised a limited scope of activities by a small government. The public mentioned was comprised of white Christian landowners. The scope of participants, the scope of government, and the ability for a Free press to cover the issues have all distorted to the point of unrecognition from 1776.
  11. Well we built a structure on shifting ground It has to come down either way.
  12. Tell people that they're mollycoddled. Take away their power to vote. Destroy democracy. 🤔
  13. ... redacted Also, if you think arguing like a man means generalizing, using caricatures and ignoring my points then ... redacted Argue like a man OR woman, I don't care. But you ignored the false testimony then literally called me a girl when I challenged you. Oh, right, you don't take posting seriously I forgot. 🙄
  14. I would say they're both Media darlings subject to rumour mongering, as evidenced by this thread. Eg the pee tape, Trudeau's teaching career But some of the posters who post this trash have admitted that they're not serious posters, so...
  15. What about the testimony? Also, for someone who uses a single picture of a woman to discount large groups of people, your assertion that a systemic breach can't be used to label the force is laughable. You are inconsistent in your application of morality.
  16. You got anecdotes? Post 'em ! 😅 I'll keep mine to myself.
  17. "Government funded" scientists... how about having private fundings from Gates, Bezos and all the guys you love to hate people ? If you hate objectivity, then science is understandably the #1 enemy.
  18. Here's the thing about ideology - most people are so unaware of their own that they can ONLY see others' ideologies as impossible to carry. The immigrant model is a modified American one. The economic model is old too. You see negligence and imagine that it is planned. Just look at the posters on here - and these are informed citizens compared to the rest. Most of us can only post according to our tribe. You even catch populists posting Marxist-like sentiments and thinking themselves to be conservative. It boggles the mind.
  19. There's not much to disagree with here, but also the barriers to improvement are entirely cultural. And there are other aspects to our culture that could help us move beyond this. You can't square a circle, and the propensity for trickle-down political economy seems to have reached its end... and people aren't accepting it. Our memories are short, but not so short that we can't recall a time when we could afford homes, and food.
  20. No. You are predisposed to thinking any error that I make is intentional. Who knows why.
  21. "One or more" so a white man gets priority over a white woman, first of all. Secondly, by divulging the criteria they reveal that they are using metrics... which would mean that a white male would win over a black female if the numbers supported that (and they do) The thing that the tribalists on here fail to realize is that if they make this about "the best one wins"... when the majority female liberal cadre imposes its will, you will mysteriously NOT be 'the best one'. If you stick to principles, you have a row to hoe. Otherwise, you are simply trying to assert that the system, as it is, works. And once you are in the minority you'll be hard done by, IMO.
×
×
  • Create New...