Jump to content

Argus

Members
  • Posts

    52,081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    232

Everything posted by Argus

  1. "Never been to Canada?" What do you mean by "Canada"? I mean the Canada made up of people who grew up here, who have no cultural baggage or attachment to other nations. I mean people who, whether their ancestry is Italian, German, Ukrainian, Japanese, English or French, are pretty much "Canadian", in their attitudes, culture and value system. But will it be a better Canada? Or will it be a Canada of mosques and masked women, of beatings and canings and executions for heresy? Uhh, where are you from? There are tons of immigrants in Ottawa, for example. There are huge numbers of immigrants throughout BC, and growing numbers in Alberta, Mannitoba and Sask. Well, you can all them Allophones, but they're immigrants, in reality, and of course, they want more immigrants, more of "their people" to expand "their community". Why would that be the only plausible debate? Let me suggest a few others. Shouldn't we cut back on the number of immigrants so that they don't threaten to overwhelm our home-grown culture and value system? Should we be more careful about the so-called refugees we let into Canada, most of whom have no identification, and who, many believe, are really economic migrants - with no job skills. Should we alter the skill and education level of immigrants? How about requiring that immigrants be able to speak English (Quebec requires they speak French before accepting them). Further, if immigrants are here to redress our aging population shouldn't we give a lot more points to younger immigrants? And finally, the most dangerous suggestion of all: should we seek to reallign immigration targer sources back towards Europe and other White countries? Not because they've got White skin, which is not particularly important, but because their cultures, their value systems, their education, skill level, societal attitudes, etc., are far, far closer to ours. Which would mean less societal disturbance, and lead to them blending in far faster. And if immigration is the third rail I wonder what THAT suggestion would constitute?
  2. That declining population thing is a bit of a myth. We would only need about 1/10th the immigrants we are getting now to prevent a decline. And even with no immigrants it would take us about a century just to fall back to where we were a couple of decades ago.
  3. I hear complaints about it all the time, but you don't hear politicians talking about it - ever. Even the Alliance, before it joined with the Conservatives, had backed away from immigration after the horrendous publicity they got as Reform. Reform wanted to drastically cut immigration. And, as it turned out, according to the polls, so did a whopping number of Canadians. But because most immigrants today are visible minorities any call for a cutback or change to immigration seems to instantly draw screams of racism from the usual suspects (ie, the left, the media, assorted government paid ethnic representatives, etc.) I have a number of problems with our present immigration system which aren't being addressed by any political party. Everyone I know does too. I don't like the flood of immigration which has changed the Canada I knew. In 1971 14% of Toronto residents were foreign born. Now it's 53% and rising. With so many immigrants coming so fast we're seeing huge communities of foreigners who never have to learn our ways or even our language. I'm not talking about the little italys of the past. I'm talking communities in the hundreds of thousands with their own malls, newspapers, tv and radio stations, businesses, etc. We're told they're Canadians, but in reality, they've never been to Canada! You see, I *like* Canada. I think it's a nifty sort of place. I think Canadians are a pretty cool people. I don't think as much of so many foreign people who seem to violently inclined, so intolerant, bigoted, sexist, biased, warlike, and fanatically religious. I don't mind if some of them come here, blend into our communities, and learn to become like us. I do mind that there are so many they can retain their old cultures and build bigger communities year after year. An American sports writer recently called Toronto a dirty, third world city. How much of Canada will there be in our largest city when the foreign born rise to 75%? I suppose if you love a cosmopolitan polyglot that's great. But what about those who like Canada and Canadians? Where is the soul of Canada when the foreign born outnumber us and are determined to keep their foreign cultures and value systems?
  4. --> COURT ORDERS CITY TO STAGE PRIDE The human-rights tribunal in the Canadian province of British Columbia July 30 ordered the small city of Terrace to proclaim and advertise Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Day. The town's council had refused to do so. Terrace, population 13,000, is 930 miles (1,500 km) north of Vancouver. The tribunal said the city council violated the provincial human-rights code when it rejected proclamation requests from the Rainbow B.C. Coalition and the Rainbow Committee of Terrace.
  5. I don't blame you for being lied to. I would blame you if it was obvious the politician was telling a lie. For example, McGuinty promising not to raise taxes, but also promising billions for health care and billions for education, and billions for other programs. How was he supposed to do that? Come on! It was obvious he was lieing. I would blame you even more if, after being lied to, you went out next time around and voted for the same guy who lied to you. Did you vote for Jean Chretien last federal election? If so, you voted for a man who everyone knew was a liar. So why wouldn't I blame you for that?
  6. I agree, of course. However, in my view, the liberal elites are made up of the Liberals and their hangers on in the media, academia and unions. I think Jack is fairly comfortable among that lot. Yeah, right, as long as the average Joe is gay, disabled, Black and poor. But if you're in the middle class the only thing Jack is going to look out for is how much of your money he can get his claws on. And if you're White and straight the only thing Jack is going to give you is a guilt trip for what a miserable, evil creature you are, and laws to make you be more sensitive and keep you from offending anyone. That's BS. THe NDP is, however, probably the only party that believes our present system can continue as is beyond the next ten years without throwing the country into bankruptcy. The NDP never saw a problem which couldn't be easily resolved by simply increasing taxes.
  7. There is already a very effective tool in place to punish politicians who lie to us. It's just that most of us aren't using it. It's called VOTING FOR SOMEONE ELSE. If a politician lies to me I will never vote for him/her again. It's that basic. If I don't like the other mainstream candidates I will look at the independants. If I don't like any of them I will not vote. But once it becomes apparent a politician is dishonest I will never vote for them again. But Chretien told bald-faced lies and got relected in landslides. He'd probably be re-elected again if he was running this year. Apparently the Canadian electorate either doesn't care if they're lied to or is too stupid to know when they have been lied to.
  8. The fact is that you don't need a university degree and teachers college to be a damned good teacher. All you need is the right combination of communications skills and patience. In most cases you either have the right personality or you don't. Teaching college can 'teach" you what you're supposed to know, but it won't make you the natural teacher that some people are. It will just help make up for your lack of natural skills. The right personality type could teach most primary and high school classes even without a degree or teaching certificate, and do it very well indeed. I wish I was on my other computer. I read a post by a parent there which is relevent here. His daughter had been a straigh A, honour roll student right through HS and graduated with high enough marks to get her into UWO. But she went to work for dad that summer. And he learned she couldn't write very well, knew nothing of history, couldn't add without a calculater... this is the product of your "qualified" teachers? I think maybe we should get back to the old days of the 3Rs, and failing those who don't pass the tests. And I think if we didn't have to pay $60k and more for teachers we'd be able to hire a lot more of them and have smaller classes.
  9. But isn't that what you and your fellow traveller are doing in these posts? Blaming Mulroney, when we all know Trudeau ran up a big deficit during good times and left Mulroney saddled with it during bad times. Blaming Harris for a deficit when he inherited a much bigger one from Rae, blaming the Tories for "gutting" health care when he actually increased funding while Paul Martin and the federal Liberals were slashing billions from health and education transfer payments.
  10. Shhhhhh. You're not supposed to mention that! You're especially not supposed to mention that Harris actually increased funding to both health care and education during his time in office while the federal liberals were slashing their contribution year after year. You're not supposed to mention that health care spending has gone from consuming 32% of public program spending in Ontario to 43% in their last year, and now 46%. Soon it will be 50% then 55% then 60%, because you aren't allowed to consider any chances. The Unions will scream bloody murder if you try to cut back o their fat salaries and benefits, for example. I once saw an add for a cafeteria worker for a health care facility, no experience neccesary, starting at $20hr. Nurses make about $60,000 per year, and much of what they do is change sheets, change bedpans, take temperatures and pulses, wipe bottoms, etc. We could be paying people $10-$12hr for that, but noooo, the unions would all go on strike. And, of course, if you dare to suggest charging a minimum fee to discourage every idiot with the sniffles or a sore throat from going to the hospital or his doctor the people who think the Canada Health Act is the bible will scream bloody murder. Just spend more! More! More! More! That's the only answer the left has on health care spending.
  11. About these cuts to health care... can you tell me just how much smaller the health care budget was his last year as opposed to his first year in office? People often talk about how he "gutted" health care. In fact, the health care budget was much larger in his last year than it was when he took office. Ontario pays more for health care than almost anyone in the world. I think, aside from the US, where much of the money goes to profits for insurance companies, there are about two or perhaps three countries on Earth where they pay more for health care. When the Tories took over health care spending consumed just under 32% of Ontario's public-program spending. Over the course of their term of office it rose to 43% (now 46%). In the foreseeable future it will rise to 60% or more. And all people can see to do is SPEND MORE MONEY! No one can propose any changes in service delivery without offending the public health sector unions or the left, which treats the Canada Health Act like the Holy Bible (or perhaps the Koran as the Left has little respect for the Bible). In any event, the only actual cuts were made by - LIBERALS! By Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, who, year after year, slashed transfer payments to the provinces which were meant for health and education. And yet, few accuse Paul Martin of "gutting" health care. He took billions from the budget and spent it on sponsorships, bomardier airplanes and gun registration. Why does Harris get all the blame?
  12. There is some doubt about just how high this debt actually was. The guy the Libs brought in for an "independant" assessment said it was $5.6b, but the Tories and some observers said otherwise. But even the "unbiased" report cited the terrible year Ontario had last year in terms of SARS, Mad Cow, and the Blackout as adding perhaps a billion to a billion and a half to the deficit. You can't really blame the Tories for that. Second, he added, I believe $800M to the deficit because the Tories had counted in this money from the feds, but it hadn't yet been approved. Since the report the money was, in fact, approved. Actually I think the feds gave $1.2B, rather than the $800m. So this year, even if you believe the report, the deficit should have been down to about $2.8B. The tories had claimed they were going to sell assets worth about $2b, but never mind Let's accept a $2.8B deficit for this year. The Liberals claim it as $8.5B. Huh? How did that happen? Well, they've loaded in all kinds of things in order to make the debt appear larger than it is. Ontario Hydro's debt, for example, was loaded in, as was debt for school boards. The plan was to create a crisis so they would then be able to justify massive tax increases and abandoning many if not most of their promises. As for the CTF and a possible law suit. Unlike other candidates, McGuinty actually went to the CTF offices, and in front of all the cameras, grandly signed a promise not to raise taxes, or, if in some unforeseen emergency he had to, to hold a referendum. The document he signed also promised to abide by the taxpayer protection act. I think this is a bit different from the usual Liberal lies. He signed, in effect, a contract with the CTF and then ignored it. I think what the CTF is going to do is ask the court to require he fulfil the promise to hold a referendum before raising taxes.
  13. I believe that one of the reasons the US went into Iraq was so they didn't have to suck up to the Saudis any more. If they could put a "friend" in charge of Iraq, then Saudi oil assumed a much lessor degree of importance and they could begin to put real pressure on the Saudis to stop funding their vicious, hateful Wahabi version of Islam all over the world. Half the mosques in the US are controlled by Wahabi mullahs because of Saudi funding, and it's the same throughout the West. But nobody has dared complain too much. I note that it wasn't until the US took over Iraq that we started hearing about Saudi crackdowns on their religious fanatics and shootouts with fundamentalists in SA. Oh please. One of the dumber things I keep reading is people equating the US embarrassing and humiliating Iraqi prisoners with the kind of things the Iraqi government used to do (ripping out fingernails, jamming hot irons into rectums, castration, gouging out eyes with spoons, etc.). Let's put aside our hatred of the Americans and have a little perspective, please. Oh if only that were true. The fact is that one of the reasons I will never vote NDP (their tendency to tax the hell out of the middle class is the second) is their determination that the state has PLENTY of business in ALL your relationships, everything you do, everything you think, everything you read, watch or say. The NDP and its social engineers want to create the perfect utopian world, and one of the ways they want to do that is by stomping out behaviour with which they dissaprove, be it pornography which offends their delicate sensibilities (but not gay porn, oh no, that's empowering!) or cracking down on free speech which offends people, or forcing businesses into collapse because they offend the NDPs socialist mentality (ie for profit day care).
  14. If Canada's interest rates were in line with those of the US what other policies encouraged high unemployment? It's not that Mulroney is my favorite politician - far from it - but my impression is that during the recession there was little they could do unless they went the way of the NDP and tried to spend their way out of it. I think that would have been disastrous given the international nature of the recession and the dual and at that time unique problems of very high inflation and very high unemployment combined with an already huge deficit. I can't remember the exact rates at the time, but I know they were into double digits, and borrowing costs were even higher. Again, we couldn't keep our interest rates below those of the US or we'd have had money sucked away from our economy. As for high growth - that wasn't going to happen with double digit unemployment and the west in a deep recession.
  15. If you're in a recession, high interest rates will make debt problems worse. The rising cost of interest payments accounted for 70 per cent of Canada's debt growth during the Mulroney years. Raising interest rates during a recession, while pursuing a policy of debt reduction and zero-inflation is the equivilant of amputating one's foot to fix a broken arm. Canada's response to falling interest rates was completely diproportinate, as few other nations pursued the zero-inflation goal with as much zeal as Canada. The final point would be that, for all his program-slashing and defecit reducing zeal, Mulroney's government failed to balance the budget and restore the economy to health. Do you know what the interest rates and inflation rates were in other western nations about the same time? You appear to be stating that the bank of Canada pursued higher interest rates than anyone else. I'd like to see a comparison. I know our rates are generally a point or half point higher than the US to attract investment to our less enticing economy. Are you suggesting our interest rates were considerably higher? As to the advisability of pursuing higher interest rates in a recession, I agree they're harmful, but are they as harmful as runaway inflation? In the long term? As for your final "point", who do you think could have done a better job given a world wide recession which hit the Americans, our biggest customers, particularly hard?
  16. Do you have a cite for that? I've heard a few people make this comment, but it always turned out they were referring to Harper stating that right now we don't have the troops to send to Iraq - because the military has been all but destroyed by the Liberals, and because what's left of it is spread too thin in Afghanistan and Bosnia. He has not, to my knowledge, expressed any doubt about the basic mission or the need for it, or the need to, as he sees it, support our friends the Americans. Any cite you have to the contary would be welcome.
  17. This my absolute favorite argument. If I give my money to the federal government (expecting services in return) it is my money and I am told to be indignant that it is taken from me. If I give it to Telus (expecting services), it is not my money and Telus can do whatever they want with, (oh wait I can not have a phone right). WTF is the difference? Because I elect one and the other is 'private?' Companies do not exist for their own sake, they exist for the sake of their customers, their employees and their owners. The company must be subservant to the individual. They have no 'buisness' advocating any sort of political position, (and no neither do unions). Absurd. The obvious difference between your "giving" money to a government and to a private company is that you are forced to give money to the government. No one is forcing you to get a cell phone or get it from Telus. They are a private company and they are responsible only to themselves. They can do anything they want with their money provided they provide you with the services you pay for. Private companies do not exist for your benefit or their employees. They belong to their owners. And the management is responsible only for doing their best to increase the value and return on their owners' investment. If that means lobbying politicians to get laws which favour them, then that's what they should do. I have no problem with the pharmaceutical companies lobbying for higher prices. I have a problem with crooked governments giving in to them. The politicians are paid to do what is in OUR best interest just as the lobby firms are paid to do what is in their customers best interst and the company management is paid to do what is in the owners' best interests. The only problem is the breakdown with the politicians, who don't give a damn about us when it comes to doing what's best for THEM instead. And you solve that problem by not voting for crooked, dishonest, unethical politicians like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien. Then the politicians will not betray us because it won't be in THEIR best interests to do so. Keep voting for politicians who lie to you and you get what you deserve - corrupt, dishonest governments.
  18. Election advertising is dumb and simple minded, and it is NEVER the politicians or would-be politicians talking about what they want or believe. Surely you realize it is done by teams of ad agency people combined with party spin doctors. They decide what the ads will be, and, in the event they have a politician actually on the camera, they decide the background, write the speech, tell them how to say it, what expression to have on their face, and what clothes to have on their backs. Do I want to hear what politicians think out of their own mouths? I'd love to! But that's not going to happen, on TV advertising or anywhere else. Dumb up the political debate!? How could it get any dumber! This is going to be another mudslinger of a campaign, with the issues on the back burner. Besides, are we going to believe anything any of them say about the issues anyway? Dalton McGuinty anyone? Examine the limits set. A total of $150,000. The Liberal Party has already spent $4 million on pre election advertising! You fear they're going to be drowned out by some third party? If you really want to keep third parties from overwhelming people you could at least set a reasonable limit for spending, as the chief justice said. But that didn't happen. Instead the limit was set so low that no third party can make any reasonable attempt to get its message across to the masses. This is not a law meant to keep third parties from overwhelming people with advertising. This is a law to silence third parties. BTW, I find it interesting that of the 4 non Quebec/Francophone judges, three voted against this law.
  19. The jump in interest rates came about as a result of the Bank of Canada's policies (policies which were backed by the Mulroney Tories and the investor community) which saw the bank jack the interest rates in a bid to stamp out inflation. They succeded, and also managed to plunge the country into a recession, slowing economic output and driving up unemployment. (In 1994, the Canadian Economics Association concluded a lengthy technical study that found that the country's deficit problems were almost entirely the result of the recession.) It's absurd to think that Canada existed in a vacuum. Canada did jack up interest rates - as did the US, as did Europe. You can't leave interest rates much lower than those other nations or money will flee to the economic area where it will get a higher return. And I think it's ludicrous to try to blame a world-wide recession, which began before Mulroney took office, on the Tories. And the restuls, on the accumulated debt created by the Liberals, was that this debt ballooned in size. Blame the Liberals, including their finance minister Jean Chretien, not Mulroney.
  20. What do you believe is "hard" left? They aren't the Communist party, if that's what you mean. On the other hand, I bet there are a lot of NDP MPs who are highly sympathetic to Communism and Marxism. And far too many seem extremely hostile towards Capitalism and the ideology behind it. Hard left? Maybe not. But too left.
  21. Not exactly. The scenario played out as follows. Canada had a very tiny debt load until the Liberals under Trudeau got at it. By the time he was out we had a big fat debt. Then Mulroney took over. At that time there was a worldwide recession, high unemployment and sky high interest rates. All the debt the Liberals had rung up was on loans which rose and fell with the going interest rates. Interest rates shot up into the high teens and lower twenties. Because of this the Trudeau debt ballooned over the following decade. Mulroney could not have done anything about that without pouring money into reducing the debt at a time of double digit unemployment. Actual program spending declined, but income from taxes also declined due to decreased economic activity - all those businesses and individuals doing so poorly, going into bankruptcy, unemployed, etc. So while I wasn't particularly fond of Mulroney I blame Trudeau and the Liberals for our present debt. Any reasonable and knowledgable person would.
  22. Interesting analogy, but not really valid unless you believe all people who would wish to advertise would be doing so at the same time on the same station. It's also invalid unless you believe that only groups representing one side of an issue or argument would be able to advertise, raise money, get donations, etc. In other words, your fear is that, for example, only people who believe in cutting government spending are capable of getting together and advertising their opinion. People not in favour of cutting government spending, are, of course, incapable of such a complicated undertaking. Second, your indignation that businesses - who you perceive are entirely responsible for groups like the NCC and CTF - might dare to use their money any way they see fit is at odds with, well, reality. - YOUR- money? Uh, no, it's not. And third - an equal playing field? Who is equal to whom here? By this law only the politicians can really engage in advertising, and only to certain preset limits. Everyone knows the Liberals are sitting on a gigantic mint of cash that they are going to use to pour advertising out into every possible mediam ad nauseum once the election starts, completely overwhelming not just what the other parties can afford to spend but what they are allowed to spend. That big pot of cash came, as everyone knows, from rich corporate backers who are expecting (and will get) payback after the election. No indignation on your part about that, just a demand they not be interfered with by any third parties.
  23. Yeah, damn taxpayers! Who do they think they are anyway, wanting input on how their money is spent!
  24. You sold me: anything that the corporate front group's you named are against must be good for democracy. Now, excuse me while I shed a tear for the millionaire's club that is the NCC. The NCC claims to have 40,000 members. The CTF claims to be non partisan and has 61,000 members. I would be interested in the detailed lists of millionaire members you no doubt can present of either or both these groups. Your fear that somehow or other third party advertising is going to benefit the rich, most of whom are already huge corporate backers of the Liberals, or in some cases the Tories, seems quite - well, quaint. Third party advertising is generally done by groups representing tens of thousands of people, be they the NCC and CTF or various labour unions. Rich people don't need to conduct advertising. They do their business in the back rooms
  25. So your solution is what? To get more politicians on the corporate teat? As near as I can tell, you seem quite in favor of anyone with money being able to overwhelm the electorate with their message. Again: you want teh best democracy money can buy. First you acknolwedge our politicans are already paid for. Then you somehow suggest that private groups or individuals doing political advertising is going to make that worse. I'm confused. How does that happen? How is allowing groups like the Taxpayers Federation or National Citizens Coalition to advertise going to make our politicians any more corrupt? As for being "in favour of anyone with money... overwhelming" people with advertising. Let's get it straight. I am in favour of free speech. You, apparently, are not. If we were subjected to massive bombardment of third party advertising - note, something which has NEVER happened, nor even come close to happening - then it might be worth taking a look at restricting it. But restricting it to a couple of ads in TOTAL is not exactly fair. It is giving a free ride to the establishment and preventing other voices, especially groups of individuals, from banding together to challenge them.
×
×
  • Create New...