Bob

It's a frightening attitude just asking for more governmental social engineering, because we need to be saved from ourselves. The ease with which you accept a parallel being drawn between parents and their children, and the government to the governed is quite perverse. It's literally the foundation of a population complicit in tyranny.

I am not sure about the rest of Canada, but as far as prescription medications go there is a provincially-administrated program that significantly helps cover the costs of prescription medications for those who have financially difficulty affording them. In Ontario it's called the Trillium Drug Program, and I would assume that similar programs exist in other provinces and territories that are also administered the provincial/territorial health ministries. So in Ontario, and likely across Canada, your assertion that lack access to prescription medications based on prohibitive costs, increasing infant mortality, is moot. I'm with M. Dancer, I don't buy into the spurious argumentation that income disparity increases infant mortality statistics.

What's your point, exactly?

Take your pick, most social works projects produce adverse results, often hurting the very people they claim to assist. We can start simple, such as minimum wage laws and rent controls. Your references to Reagan's policies and the Great Depression seem to be red herrings, as they are far too broad to discuss here. Like I said, take your pick regarding a few social programs, and let's examine their successes or failures. Yes, social democracy and Marxism are different. But they have a lot of overlap, specifically with respect to base suppositions regarding morality and perception of human nature. More often than not, argument from self-proclaimed communists and self-proclaimed social democrats are very similar. They use the same rhetoric and subscribe the same economic fallacies.

I don't find it particularly strange to talk about "gay history" in public schools in the context of the development of American civil rights over time. I think it's a bit strange to distinguish itself as a topic that stands on its own, but there's certainly some important things to learn about regarding the movement for equality for homosexuals in America when learning about American history. Seems relevant to me, but it's important to see how it's approached.

That's fine, but this story touches on broader issues. So in this thread we will discuss those broader issues. I know I am not alone when I say that it is unfortunate that our CCRF doesn't provide greater protections for personal freedoms. This inevitably leads to silly stories like this one, where a private business is coerced by the government with respect to how to conduct its operations - forcing Air Canada to adhere to governmentally-imposed bilingual service standards. Either way you slice it, this is an infringement of freedom. Of course supporters of such regulations will argue that this infringement on freedom is for some greater good, or, at the very least, to benefit an entitled minority known as Francophones. My perspective is that people (and businesses) should be free to choose how they wish to interact with one another. Government intervention in this case is an example of dictating the terms through which people (and businesses) can deal with one another, and in this case, it is taxing the business in order to 'benefit' a minority. Consider that such regulations didn't exist. What would be the problem? This man would've gotten where he was going. Non-English speakers fly on English-only airlines every days. Moreover, imagine how many times per day people fly who don't speak the language(s) of the plane staff or indeed even the airport. They manage, either way. We certainly shouldn't have government forcing businesses to adhere to such expectations. If we really believe that this is a worthwhile social endeavour, then the taxpayer should pay for all the expenses incurred by the regulated businesses in their efforts to comply with this nonsensical imposition of bilingualism.

It's really sad when the government forces business to adhere to what should be a governmental-only policy. It is unfair to force a company like Air Canada to be bilingual through-and-through. It should only be as bilingual as it chooses to be. The government can set such a standard for itself, but it shouldn't be permitted to force private businesses to do so. And as we can see, this bilingual regulation unjustly imposed on Air Canada is easy to exploit, as the story from the OP demonstrates.

Why don't you actually read the rest of my post? I clearly stated that the author's primary argument is that Canada is making a mistake by not spending a larger amount on "social services". Specifically, he is stating that Canada should bring up its spending on "social services" to the same level of the average OECD expenditure, as a share of GDP. In 2007, Canada ranked 23rd of 34 OECD nations in this important indicator, allocating just 16.9 per cent of its gross domestic product to citizen support through social spending. The OECD average was 19.3 per cent. These benefits would normally be directed to families, seniors, persons with disabilities and workers losing their jobs who require support/ He blames this alleged shortfall of government spending (or redistribution of wealth, in a another sense) for these "problems" - Not surprisingly, Canada compares poorly to other OECD nations in terms of income inequality and poverty rates as nations with stronger welfare states do better on these indicators. I wholly reject the supposition that income inequality a social problem that that the government should actively work against in the context of a free society. This position is straight-up Marxism. Additionally, poverty is relative. So the statement that Canada allegedly has worse poverty statistics that most other OECD states means nothing to me. Basically, I find his entire line of argumentation to be false, as I think most social projects are detrimental to poorer people, and cause results that are exactly the opposite of their stated intentions. I also think, broadly, that social programs increase poverty. Keepitsimple already pointed other stupidities in the article that I don't need to repeat.

Seems like a movie that just seeks to disgust the viewer. Even as the movie appears to be successful in that regard considering the reaction you felt from watching it, is that really an admirable ambition for a film? As a fan of a wide variety of genres, from good old suspense to westerns, this doesn't seem like a movie that would impress me. It's also important to remember that it's just a movie - it's fake. That being said, I'm quite certain the most horrifying stories are true.

Sadly, this ridiculous article was penned by a York University professor of "health policy and management". He's clearly stating that more government spending is ideal regarding healthcare outcomes (which is arguably somewhat true in the context of government-administered care in countries like Canada). Still, the criticism of Canada not spending enough of money on "social services" as a share of GDP is just socialistic rhetoric. Here's the class warfare incitement - Income inequality is an important corrosive for societal cohesion and overall societal quality of life. I wonder how many students per year are being indoctrinated into this mentality. Just another example of universities producing "policy professionals" who become part of the "more government is better" mentality. It's frightening.

Canadians should not wish to be ranked highly on a list that rewards increased government spending on health care and "social services", and considers incomes disparity as something undesirable that should be worked against via redistribution of wealth.

Am I the only one who never has a clue what you're talking about? It's simple, really, perhaps you didn't read the linked article. The very first paragraph really spells it out: The federal ethics commissioner has ruled former Conservative MP and junior cabinet minister Helena Guergis breached her ethical obligations in 2009 in writing Simcoe municipal officials to promote a business she knew could potentially benefit her husband Rahim Jaffer. What does this have to do with alleged "double standards" from Harper? Did you have something specific to say or is this just another incoherent rant where you go slashing against the metaphorical windmills?

It depends on the minority. Either way, people still maintain the right to be judged as individuals, and not by association with this group or that group, whether it be cultural, linguistic, religious, racial, or whatever.

Absolutely. Two sentiments held in my mind when reading pinko's replies but before I saw this post of yours - the sense frustration, as if I was banging my head against the wall. That is what it's like speaking with pinko, who robotically drones on about how a gun registration system would increase public safety through somehow assisting the police in their investigation of crime. Many pages and posts later in this thread, we're yet to see a real explanation from pinko or any of the other folks on that side of the fence as to exactly how a gun registry promotes public safety. It's no coincidence that people like pinko who support the establishment of a gun registry also say things like this - "If anything there should be greater restrictions on firearms." "However I can't for the life of me understand why anyone with no criminal intent would object to registration." "I think a gun is a phallic symbol for many of you. The fact of the matter is you don't need guns." It's pretty obvious that pinko thinks guns are for criminals and weirdos, and that good and decent people don't own guns and want them as restricted as possible, if not outright banned. He's said in this very thread that guns should only be in the possession of the authorities. His argumentation has nothing to do with public safety, and everything to do with simply placing more red tape on gun ownership. It doesn't matter what type of red tape either, as long as it's red tape. Moreover, it doesn't matter just how expensive the red tape is, either, or whether it satisfies any legitimate public service.

I'm not making excuses for or justifying anything. I'm pointing out, as has been done many times by many people in this forum, your hypocrisy on all issues regarding Israel. By the way, constantly using terms like "extremist" and "fascist" as descriptive terms of Israel doesn't do anything to strengthen your argumentation.

My god this argument is stupid. Guns are a little easier to hide than cars and they don't have big shiny license plates on them with relatively easy number/letter strings to remember. If someone witnesses a crime involving a car, it's not too unlikely that they'll make a point to recognize details of the car - car make and model, colour, and license plate. In the case of the gun, you shouldn't expect witnesses to recall make and model, or to have seen the gun's serial number. There is simply no practical reason to have a gun registry. It will not provide any signifant assistance in the investigation of crime.

That is YOUR red herring. YOU intentionally misrepresented opposition to this wasteful program as being the result of criminal elements not wishing to register their guns. So when those of us who stated that this program is a waste of money and blatantly a make-work government program of theft, YOU ridiculously asserted that we were opposing gun registration because we have criminal intentions. Tangible results are a "matter of opinion"? My god, you say the stupidest things. The gun registry will do nothing to assist in the investigation of crime. In the event of the location of a weapon suspected to have been involved in a crime in which the gun was fired, the police do not need to speak with the owner to whom the gun is registered - and that's assuming the gun was registered in the first place, which is completely independent of the existence of a gun registration database. If my legally-registered gun was stolen and used in a crime, how will that assist in a police investigation? You think if they find the gun in the criminal's possession, they're going to need my assistance in their investigation? It is pathetic how you cling to this mythology of a gun registration database actually assisting in the investigation of crime, as if crimes with guns are committed with legally registered guns by their legally registered owners. I cannot fathom how someone thinks that criminals are out there performing crimes with guns legally registered in their names. So if public opinion supported your position, that'd make your assertions correct?

Which system has been built? If you're referring to the billion-plus dollar scandal, it was STILL incomplete by the time of its suspension, and not even close to completion. In other words, let's just build programs and examine them after-the-fact, rather than use critical things to make reasonable predictions about the utility of proposed programs. This is the absolute height of stupidity with respect to public policy, although this does seem to be the norm.

The only argument advanced in this thread in support of gun registration is an alleged ability to use such a system for the purpose of criminal investigation. Please explain how such a system is used thousands of times per day towards those ends. Without thousands of crimes being committed with guns on a daily basis, WITH police knowledge of the registration number of the guns, WITH legal registration of the firearm being examined, there is absolutely no way it is purposefully used thousands of times per day.

Pierre Trudeau was painfully amazingly moronic with respect to understanding the tyranny (and tyrants) of the time. He really didn't grasp what communism was or who the dictators were. He seemed to legitimately think that communism was just another way to do things, now worse than any other system. No question he had a lot of other admirable talents, but as is common among myopic Western leftists who are massively ignorant of certain historical and political realities, there were some major things he just didn't get. Trudeau and Castro.

Moreover, I haven't even begun explaining how these aid programs kill economic development and adaptation. We haven't even scratched the surface because the discussion keeps getting dragged down into stupidity with your assumptions and reflexive support for an institution you know nothing about. Your entire line of argumentation is premised on a belief that if such an institution exists, and has persisted for so long, without any mainstream dialogue in our media or politics addressing it, with fancy PR websites proclaiming small victories over measles, then it must be worthwhile.

Advocating for abolition of the UN is certainly not the same thing as ceasing all aid programs. Aid endeavours transcend the UN, which is something you're unable to understand. The UN isn't the be-all and end-all of vaccine programs and infrastructure development. It's simply the most prominent institution which contains many prominent subsidiaries that claim to operate in the best interests of impoverished peoples, and this prominence comes at great cost the most needy - who STILL cannot get basics such as running water, sustainable agriculture, disease control, educational development and basic infrastructure. The problem is much bigger than the UN, of course, the structure of aid in most dimensions is a failure - which is perpetuating poverty and causing more deaths than would otherwise be the case. Why don't you tell us again about how a measles reduction of 40% (without any qualification of location or timeframe) is something to be proud of considering the vaccine likely costs pennies per dose and has been around for half a century? Another UN success! And this is not for lack of funding. While these professional aid architects sit in Geneva and New York with their Italian suits being chauffeured to catered "conferences", they flash a PowerPoint slide with the talking points you parroted while patting themselves on the back and asking for MORE money... maybe in five years, they can reduce measles by another 10%! And useful idiots like you lap it up, buying into the mythology that the UN is an indispensable tool of foreign aid.

All you keep doing is arguing a position without knowing anything. You jumped into this topic awhile back when you made unfounded statements alleging "effective" programs administered by the UN, implying disaster in the event of the UN's abolition. You worship at the altar of the UN without knowing anything about it. Your entire line of argumentation is based on assumptions - that the UN must be running "effective" programs, and that these "effective" programs are essential to provide assisted people with the most basic of needs. These were your assumptions when you entered this discussion awhile ago (in an earlier thread), and they remain your assumptions today - without having any knowledge whatsoever. Seriously, the best you could do was a copy-and-paste from a UNICEF public relations website. At least go watch a few Jeffrey Sachs lectures online or read his book "The End of Poverty".

I've said it several times. None of the programs need to be transitioned. Their destruction is the primary objective of abolishing the UN. They harm the populations they claim to assist. People are dying NOW because of the UN, not the other way around. We don't need the UN to administer sleeping nets and vaccines or to establish schools. And the UN fails miserably in those and virtually every other dimension, despite the context-free fundraising talking points you provided in this thread from the UNICEF website that attempt to paint a rosier picture. The "insult" argument wasn't mine, it was Bonam's. And I reject that argument completely. This isn't an issue of pride, it is an issue of pragmatism. If we really want to do good by impoverished societies, we need to seriously revisit aid programs, which certainly includes virtually all sections of the UN - which invariably leads to its abolition, or, at the very least, to a massive slicing off of most of its bureaucracy. You have everything upside down. You think the UN is some lifevest that keeps at-risk people from sinking. The opposite is true.

What insensitivity? There are finite resources to go around. Lines must be drawn regarding how much we're willing to export in aid. You can't ignore costs. Ever. But leftists like you imagine that wealth manifests itself out of thin air. Economic cost (which is more complex than simply dollars and cents) is always the foundation of any program. You can't ignore economic realities. As far as what they need, what, do you think there is some shortage of aid?