Queenmandy85
-
Posts
4,215 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
16
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Queenmandy85
-
-
23 minutes ago, ExFlyer said:
Thing is all Canadian media is indebted to a point to the Liberals.
No. They are indebted to the government. Soon, it will be the CPC.
-
20 minutes ago, ironstone said:
I'm not saying all the MSM supports Trudeau. I'm of the opinion that on the whole, the MSM is rather left leaning and they should not be receiving money from the government. Let them sink or swim on their own.
That will kill all of the small town newspapers that are bearly hanging on. Without them, there will be no local news. Media is way more than politics. Political junkies like us have tunnel vision. We do not see the majority of what the MSM provides.
We are too partisan. A political party is like a hockey team. Whether the CPC team or the Liberal team wins or loses has the same impact on our lives as whether it is the Flames or the Leafs. Governments have a very narrow range of choices in the conduct of government. Both Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Poilievre have promised to make big changes, but once in office, they find out that any change has a host of consequences, most of them unforeseen. The next government will behave the same as the previous one.
-
1 minute ago, ironstone said:
It's not that easy to find. https://tnc.news/2021/08/11/liberals-hide-names-of-media-companies-given-61-million-in-subsidies/
https://www.pressreader.com/canada/national-post-latest-edition/20230527/281745568761869
There are some strings attached however. They do want the recipients to adopt DEI.
If there is a choice between layoffs, or taking the handout, I can't blame them for taking the money. But who are they going to shill for? Trudeau who is now paying them, or PP who wants to stop it?
If the MSM and CBC are supporting the government because of money, then it is clear they would be supporting Mr. Poilievre since he is about to be their paymaster. Why would he want to lose that advantage? If the MSM were bought by the Grits, why is Mr. Poilievre about to win the biggest majority since Brian Mulroney and John Diefenbaker? If he follows through with all the things he has said, he will end up with a squeaker of a minority in 2030. I don't think he is that stupid. When he is appointed in a few months, he will receive a briefing on the issues he faces and will continue the policies of his predecessor. (Minus the NDP policies) However, if he does cancel the support for daycare and dental programs and fires thousands of government employees, he will be building a "dump Poilievre" machine out of the gate.
When I was in school, I was active in the PC Student Federation. I got to know a lot of guys like Mr. Poilievre. Heck, I was one of them. Everyone of us were destined to be Prime Minister. The difference is, Mr. Poilievre never matured beyond college level politics. It will be interesting to witness his learning curve after he is appointed.
-
2 hours ago, blackbird said:
Yes one third of the price of gas in B.C. are government taxes, including carbon tax. We have the highest gas prices in north America. Right now regular gas is over two dollars a litre. Just another thing on top of outrageous prices for homes and groceries that is pushing many people into homelessness and despair.
I gassed up yesterday in Saskatoon. $1.54.9 before the CAA 3 cent / litre discount. Gas is 20 cents a litre cheaper than it was about a year ago.
The price on carbon in BC is a provincial tax. There is no federal carbon tax in BC. Still, it has had a positive effect in lowering carbon emissions.
Have you considered moving to Saskatchewan? Here is a link to a nice 3 bedroom one bathroom house in Brock, SK, near Kindersley. $99,900.
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/26087865/402-1st-street-e-brock
I would love to live in my Grandma's old house in the Molehill area of downtown Vancouver. I also wish that Dief would be the Chief again. If wishes were horses, beggers would ride.
Marx was wrong.
-
7 hours ago, blackbird said:
Is Taxation Ever Allowed?
Taxation is almost universal and an ancient tradition. Who do you think paid for Offa's Dyke? Canadians pay moderate taxes compared to some other nations with a similar ranking in the quality of life. Perhaps we should just count our blessings. Blackbird seems to be advancing an American idea of government. That is his right. (And I aplologize if I am incorrect). It may be fine for our neighbours but it is alien to us.
-
23 minutes ago, Goddess said:
I used to live in her riding and she is awesome. Great asset to our community.
If she were willing to run again I would campaign for her day and night.
It is wonderful to have you back. You've been missed. 😉
-
1
-
1
-
-
It is easier for a camel to walk through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the gates of Heaven.
If you think taxes are high in Canada, go to Norway.
The level of intrusion of government in peoples' lives is determined by the people, through their Parliament.
I get the sense that some of you are under the impression Mr. Trudeau is going to be Prime Minister forever.
-
20 minutes ago, blackbird said:
Seriously Michael? Give us a break. Nobody is going to swallow that one.
There is nothing voluntary about taxation. It is compulsory.
Charity is voluntary.
It costs money to operate a government in the 21st century. To acquire than money, governments collect taxes. Taxation is the purview of Parliament. You elected your MP and MLA to do this. The fact that you are posting on this forum indicates you attended a school funded by taxpayers. Do you have tens of thousands of dollars to pay for your own healthcare? I don't. Where do you suggest governments get the money to pay for services designed to keep you and your decendents alive?
-
2 hours ago, blackbird said:
It appears Trudeau and the Federal government are trying to increase their powers over provinces and impose their ideology on the whole country. That could be a form of creeping Socialism.
You don't have to worry about creeping socialism. If socialism is going to make it, it is going to have to be ultrasonic. Very soon, the grits will be out and the CPC will be in. You can start to relax.
"After all it's not that awful. You know what the fellow said – in Italy, for thirty years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love, they had five hundred years of democracy and peace – and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock."
Orson Welles as Harry Lyme in the Third Man.
-
On 4/20/2024 at 11:06 AM, Zeitgeist said:
The writing is on the wall for Canada if we continue on the current course of stupid priorities and overspending on government fluff:
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/the-nadir-of-our-once-great-nation
What are you complaining about? The Liberal government is in its last days and the NDP are tanking. Before you know it, the CPC will be in power. Just be patient a few months longer.
-
15 hours ago, blackbird said:
Just how important are the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution?
What has adeclaration of independence got to do with anything?
How does the BNA Act and the Canada Act have anything to do with Satan?
You should have posted this in the American section. They are going to elect the Anti-Christ in November.
-
16 hours ago, Army Guy said:
We have deployed Leopards with blades to assist with removal of transmission towers that where destroyed in the ice storm, same as the winnipeg floods, we deployed IFV tanks, and engineer equipment because of the water levels were to high for most trucks, and some roads were washed out...to evac people that got stranded and to deliver sandbags and supplies across vast areas that were flooded...
As for civil disorder, military has been deployed to Oka, during both world wars, to crush union strikes in which resulted in many being shoot...the conscription crises military was used to counter riots...take a look at the liberals wanted to use tanks to remove the convoy, yes it was all talk but the fact remains someone brought it up and had asked...in all these cases police did not have what it took to solve the issues...
Many of us have joked around about what we would do if the US military attacked....but i suspect most would do their jobs until our government surrendered...once the fight starts it is hard to make it stop...many Canadian soldiers would die doing their job...it would be a short ands sweet battle but never underestimate our soldiers...I find it kind of funney that most people think our military would cave at the sight of the US military...but as undermanned as we have been we have always picked up our nations flag and held it on the battlefield...all for a ungrateful country...that can't even give their vets proper benefits...the funny part is most Canadians take pride in how badly we treat those that take up arms for our country...
I continue to defer to your expertise in military matters. Where you and I differ, I feel no shame in saying you know what you are talking about and I don't.
-
1
-
-
39 minutes ago, Aristides said:
If you are weak in conventional forces, your only option if attacked becomes nuclear weapons and mutual destruction. Why would an aggressor resort to nukes and mutual destruction if they can achieve their goals with conventional forces? You have it backwards.
That is the point, Step over the line, and you are going to die. No question. You will die. Your family will die. Your country will be unihabitable for thousands of years. Are you sure that is what you want? Think carefully. If you and your little tank cross into Poland, by the time you have gone 10 km, you will be part of a radioactive cloud of ash drifting back home to Moscow where you can join the radioactive cloud of ashes tha used to be Putin. Whether your goal is Paris or a pub 5 metres across the border, you are dead.
That is deterrence.
-
In 1971, I wrote a paper on the decline of the Canadian Forces for a History paper. What surprised me was that it was nothing new. With the coming war with Nazi Germany, in the late 1930's, we had a total military force of 4500. We had three ships. The flagship had warped forward guns. In late August 1939, there were large anti war protests in Vancouver. When war came, and conscrition was finally introduced, conscripts (zombies) were promised they would not have to serve overseas. 60,000 conscripts did not volunteer to serve overseas. In 1944, the government reversed that policy because the CAF in Europe were very short handed. The garrison in Terrace BC, made up of mostly Saskatchewan zombies, mutinied. The took over the town and held it for a week.
I have campaigned for a viable military force for Canada since 1971. Nobody listens. No politician, and nobody on this forum is in favour of Canada having a defence capability to act independently of allies in defence of Canada. They whine that is it too expensive and we don't have the population. Well, Bucko, we have the same population as Ukraine. In 1945 we had a million people in the CAF, one of the largest navies and air forces with one third of our population. Rather than a large conventional force, I say we need a large nuclear force.
But, as soon as the war was over, we reverted to neglecting our defence. I am tired of it. A few months ago,I had a revelation that, with the exception of World War Two, no major war in the last thousand years has actually accomplished anything good. Most of them could have been settled at the conference table without all the killing. Military history is very interesting, as long as you don't think about all the people who died.
We have several members of this forum, such as Army Guy and Doug and others who have served our country and who deserve tremendous respect.
-
16 hours ago, I am Groot said:
An army is used to deter attacks, to respond to emergencies like earthquakes and floods, and to control civil disorder. You're saying none of that is going to be of any value in the next hundred years?
F-35's and Leopard II tanks are no help in emergencies like earthquakes and floods. We do not use the military for civil disorder. We have police for that. If the US ever does invade, is conventional resistance worth the death toll? I suspect we would resign ourselves to it. If there is a Russian attack against NATO, it will result in a general nuclear exchange. F-35's and tanks would be irrelevant. It is NATO's nuclear weapons that deter Russia, not conventional forces. Ironically, a build up of NATO's conventional forces weakens deterrence, but signalling an attack on NATO would be answered conventionally. Deterrence relies on the guarantee that crossing the frontier would result in total nuclear destruction.
16 hours ago, I am Groot said:You're asking us to spend untold billions, hundreds of billions on climate change initiatives we know will make absolutely no difference.
That is incorrect, What we are doing now will affect the global population in about two centuries. That was the estimate in the 1970s (250 years) and it hasn't changed. It has only been confirmed. We are almost out of time now. We can mitigate it by converting to nuclear power. We have enough uranium for 200 years, by which time, we will have replaced it with thorium fueled reactors. That only works if we have the petroleum to lubbricate the generators and the steel to build them. Petroleum, coal and iron are the three pillars of technological civilization. Burning oil and coal for energy is a total waste. These resourses belong to future generations who will rely on them to survive.
HomoSapiens have only been here for a couple of hundred thousand years. That is only a third of the species life expectancy. Our cousins, Homo Erectus, was around for one and a half million years. You would think we are smarter than they are.
-
1 minute ago, Aristides said:
Russia won't go to war with a strong NATO. A weak NATO is a reason Putin felt he could throw the dice in Ukraine and get away with it.
Wars are a lot more expensive than keeping a strong peacetime military and without peace, all your new social programs (funded on debt) won't be possible.
NATO will no longer have the US as a reliable partner after President Trump moves back into the Oval Office. Russia will be be sorely tempted to recover the former Warsaw Pact slave states. Ukraine has been a valuable lesson for the Russian military. They ignored the doctrine established by the Soviets of opening an offensive with an overwhelming artillery barrage because they miscalculated and failed to use sufficient force.
On the unlikely scenario where the Russian army does not include nuclear artillery, they will hit NATO with everything they have in their conventional arsenal. They will have replenished their tanks lost in Ukraine.
Scenario 1. If they break through, how do you imagine France will react when the Russians are advancing on the Rhine in force? French and British forces will nuke the bejeezus out of the Russians.
Scenario 2. If the Russians get bogged down in the German killing zones and suffer heavy losses, they will not have the conventional forces left to stop a counter attack and subsequent invasion of Russia. What do you think they will do? Nuke the bejeezus out of NATO (including the US.)
There are other scenarios but they all result in the same conclusion.
Which ever scenario you choose, it will result in an all out strategic nuclear exchange. The Canadian Forces will have no impact on the result.
-
On 4/15/2024 at 4:47 PM, I am Groot said:
And how much did we throw away during the great Covid money splurge? Trudeau has been promising tens of billions in new spending this year on housing, on dental plans, on natives, on the environment - whenever he decides he wants to spend money he has no difficulty just doing it.
During the onslaught of the Covid pandemic, it was essential to,in the words of Conservative Premier Higgs, "Stay the blazes home." The stringent measures enacted by the provincial and federal governments cost a lot of money, but they saved tens of thousands of lives. Time was critical. The close co-ordination of provinces and the federal governments resulted in better outcomes than nations who failed to take it seriously.
Housing is a more important issue for many Canadians than defence.
The dental plan is an issue that the NDP required in exchange for their support. For the government to toss that support would be suicide. It has bought time for the government. It is easy for us to say tell them to step over the cliff, but would you or I just throw away all our time and effort so easily? Personally, if I were PM facing annihilation in the next election, I would rather put it off for as long as possible. In the long run, there are a lot of people who need the dental plan and if it provides more access to dental care, it will save money for healthcare.
By the environment, we face a situation where most Canadians do not understand what the greenhouse effect is going to have on our future generations. That is a criminal indictment on the education system. When you hear otherwise intelligent people more worried about today's economy than the devestation coming down on our future generations, it makes you weep at how ignorant and greedy we are.
Homo Sapiens are a rare species of animal that is able to see far into the future and has the ability to adjust our behaviour to prevent our actions from causing catastrophe. Yet, we are too selfish to do anything about it.
Compared to the coming tsunami of disaster presented by global warming, our economy and defence issues are totally insignificant.
We are asking the taxpayers to spend their money on a defence force that is unlikely to make any difference. If the Americans invade us, is the Canadian Armed Forces going to be able to repell them?
If the Russians attack a NATO country, are we going to have the nuclear weapons to Destory them? Same question with China? Anyone who believes a war between NATO and Russia will not go nuclear with in days of the first engagement is niave.
-
That has always worked for me, but I sometimes get a sense that the Conservative prime directive of God, King and Country is no longer resonant. Perhaps, you and I are the only Conservatives left. We live in a world of liberals, republicans and bolsheviks.
-
16 hours ago, Army Guy said:
You keep posting these unrealistic numbers...PP has already told you how he is going to increase spending,
As I asked above, where are my numbers wrong?
Mr. Poilievre has not committed to 2% of GDP. While any increase is welcomed, even he cannot work miracles. Governments can only do what the electorate will allow.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
We need to ramp that up to 200K within a decade.
However, Trudeau has always hated the armed forces. His father was the one who transformed Canada's reputation as one of the best fighting forces in the World, into a joke.
How do you propose to attract that many recruits? It is possible theoretically, but how do you achieve that without conscription. Anyone who has read Canadian history knows consription is a non-starter.
While Trudeau was not keen on the armed forces (this was the middle of the Viet Nam War), the credit for wrecking the Canadian Forces goes to Paul Heller and Mike Pearson. No government since then has made any move to correct the downward trajectory of the CAF.
Even those on this forum who want to reverse this trend still want to depend on clinging to the Americans for protection. The last Canadian Prime Minister to refuse to take orders from the Americans was John Diefenbaker. This is not a criticism of the US, but we need to have the capacity to be independent of the US when our interests diverge from theirs.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:
Why do you post dogshit?
At this point, your posts are not even worth being called out as incorrect. They are so horrendously bad, that they are the equivalent to a dog shitting in a parking lot. If your internet posts were a physical thing, I would dread stepping on them, since I would immediate have to wipe off my shoe on the grass, then hose it down when I returned home.
Perhaps I am mathematically challenged.
We have about 28 million taxpayers. We spend $20 billion on defence now. To get to 2%, we need another $18 Billion, but friction being what it is, I rounded it up to $20 billion over and above what we pay now. $20 billion divided by 28 million taxpayers equals $714. If we presume nothing changes and the $18 billion remains the same, (like prices never go up in government procurements) it comes out to $642.86 per taxpayer.
So, I am relying on your superior math skills to show me my error.
-
1
-
-
51 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:
you don't even have an armaments industry by the way
We used to, and we should, but we won't. The voters don't see that as a priority.
-
2 hours ago, I am Groot said:
As for being willing to pay. I have never seen any groundswell of protest at ANY spending initiative. Ever. Sure, the opposition will whine and complain about any large contract. But that doesn't really represent public concern or anger. The Liberals campaigned vigorously against buying the F15 while they were in opposition, but it was never much of a concern in the election that followed.
And almost everyone acknowledges that the military is in terrible shape and has to be brought up to speed. I don't see a lot of opposition to doing so.
In order to get to 2%, the average taxpayer will have to pay an extra $700 in taxes. Spending on defence is easy. Getting the revenue to pay for it is the problem. Why do you think governments have let the Forces decline so much? If the voters wanted a credible Canadian military, the governments would do it. The fact that governments don't make defence a priority is because it isn't a priority for the voters.
Beyond the increase in the Defence budget is the re-building in our armaments industry. That is a big price tag in its self.
-
1
-
-
14 minutes ago, Aristides said:
Exactly, you don't have to be able to defeat everyone on your own, just be prickly enough that you aren't worth the trouble and have alliances that will deter the more powerful threats. NATO.
But how much of a deterrent will NATO be when President Trump is back in the Whitehouse as Putin's Manchurian candidate.
Canada needs a female leader
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
Erin O'Toole was the best person for the job. Unlike Sheer or Poilievre, Erin at least had a career before enteering politics.