August1991 Posted August 20, 2009 Author Report Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) You know, I can't tell whether you're irked by how your money is being spent, or by the fact that your money's spent at all. If it's the former, what else can you do but vote? If it's the latter... well, there are still some uninhabited outcrops of rock amongst the southern Japanese islands where I'm sure you could live a hermetic, if tax-free, life.Bambino, I don't want to get sidetracked.I happen to think that Harper is using my tax money for a G8/Northern trip, photo op that is Political Porno. Same old, same old. I am tired of this nonsense. It accomplishes absloutely nothing, except using several tonnes of kerosene to fly several thousand people North (CBC/R-C journalists included) and make them feel important. Been there, done that. It is insane for a society to move hundreds/thousands of people around (thousands of kilometers) merely to make them feel important. (What was the carbon footprint of this trip?) You know, I can't tell whether you're irked by how your money is being spent, or by the fact that your money's spent at all.I have two sisters - older and younger. My younger sister sold her Walmart shares and she no longer shops at Walmart. Unfortunately, Stephen Harper still has control over her tax money, and spends it in Afghanistan - despite her BQ vote in the last election. Edited August 20, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Keepitsimple Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 And Harper is using this to get your money.How would you feel if Harper wanted to give your money to a small community in northern Quebec? Sorry KeepitSimple, Harper is using my money to pull your heartstring. It's political porn - at my expense. That's the beauty of democracy - and this board....everybody's entitled to their opinion.....and everybody's entitled to disagree. But now that I think of it - I don't like the work "entitled" - let's change it to "allowed". Quote Back to Basics
Argus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 Argus I agree with you, but the simple fact is that the public is now getting some concept of the depth of the problem. I can only hope that the next government will actually do something before it is too late, if it isn't already. The "next" government would be Liberal. So you can forget that. They might funnel money up north to sponsor dance troupes and French language education, but no way are they going to put money into the military. The "next" government, will be cutting money from the military. Absolutely guaranteed. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 As Jerry said Argus, this is a PR exercise to get votes among some dreamers in the South - and Harper is using my money to buy those votes. I'm tired of this. Investing in the sovereignty of the arctic, given the resources there, would be a profitable thing for Canada to do. And if it makes you feel any better, as a major economic sinkhole, Quebec doesn't actually contribute any money to exercises like this. It is a consumer of money funneled to it from other provinces. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 It's political porn. They used to call it a "photo op" but now it's just "political porn". If it serves a purpose I don't mind. If it's a warmup to prepare people for the need to defend the Arctic, and an announcement of major moneys in that direction I'm all for it. But we see this every year, along with the promises, and nothing has yet come of it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 And Harper is using this to get your money.How would you feel if Harper wanted to give your money to a small community in northern Quebec? If you can somehow find a community somewhere in Quebec the government hasn't yet tried to flood with money I would advise you to send the location to Harper and he'll take care of it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jdobbin Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 (edited) Vote?I can buy or sell a share any day of the week. I can only vote for/against Harper every four years, assuming he calls a vote. My shares are my money. My vote in a federal election changes absolutely nothing. If your vote doesn't change anything, don't vote. Or you can vote with your feet and join a ship with your fellow libertarians and stay out of the jurisdiction at sea or space: http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3328/floating_utopias/ When or how will this end? The State cannot spend/borrow other people's money forever. So, how does this Ponzi scheme end? It will end when you board your ship and isolate yourself from other humans. Edited August 20, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Topaz Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 So now our north is the "new frontier" and Harper needs to something to help the people and the border up there. BUT by doing so, I believe he's trying to get those "12 Votes" needed for a majority government, and I'm just wondering how much further is he taking Canadians into debt. I'm not sure if you get more votes or lose some. Quote
g_bambino Posted August 20, 2009 Report Posted August 20, 2009 [Y]ou can vote with your feet and join a ship with your fellow libertarians and stay out of the jurisdiction at sea or space: Now, you know a space ship is going to cost money to build and maintain, and someone's going to have to manage that fund, deciding how much engineering gets, what sick bay gets, what... Oh, dammit! We've made a government again. Quote
August1991 Posted August 22, 2009 Author Report Posted August 22, 2009 (edited) Investing in the sovereignty of the arctic, given the resources there, would be a profitable thing for Canada to do.Then let private enterprise do it.Why does Stephen Harper use my tax money for an anglo PR porno exercise? Why? Look to the OP. He's pulling the same stunt that Justin Trudeau did, and Diefenbaker - The Great White North. BS. ---- Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper all travelled to the far north using taxpayer money. In fact, all the CBC/Radio-Canada reporters, cameramen etc who told us about these trips also traveled on our dime. And the people Harper met? Think about it. IMV, it's insane. If you can somehow find a community somewhere in Quebec the government hasn't yet tried to flood with money I would advise you to send the location to Harper and he'll take care of it.The NWT is 43,000 people.But Argus, I agree. I am tired of paying this kind of BS. Edited August 22, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Jerry J. Fortin Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 A little message for all that oppose strengthening our sovereignty in the north, you are fools. The Arctic represents our final frontier, a place of vast wealth and resources. It is a virtually undisturbed wilderness of intense beauty. The north is a place where you seek friends, not enemies. This is a pivotal time in the development of this nation, one in which we can either make it or break it. The entire planet is clamoring for resources to be utilized in productive efforts and our northern territories have these things in spades. This is our ticket folks, we can have it all, or we can roll over and give it away. We now have the technology and the financial wherewithal to do something for the first time in our nations history, lets not blow this off so easily. Quote
jbg Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Pierre Trudeau, Justin Trudeau and Stephen Harper all travelled to the far north using taxpayer money. In fact, all the CBC/Radio-Canada reporters, cameramen etc who told us about these trips also traveled on our dime. And the people Harper met?Ditto Chretien. In fact, remember his Cabinet days? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
DFCaper Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Then let private enterprise do it. WOW, do we feel differently about this issue. Am I ever glad that our founding fathers felt differently than you do, or the railway would have stopped in Toronto, and the west would not be part of Canada. When you see a proper map of Canada, do you get offended that the north is shown? I personally see the North as being part of Canada. And now that it appears to be melting, I am a believer that we should be investing in infrastructure. I think these photo shoots are advertisement to the people of this country about the north. It is kind of a new frontier to us in the south. And investing in infrastructure will be expensive, and needs government promotion. Private industry isn't a fan of investing in areas without infrastructure. That's why China is more successful than India. Private industry does not care about the long term viability of an area, but only profitability. If we are going to continue to claim this area as our land, then we should be capable of going there and functioning. I doubt our military has much ability in the north today. It's a different world up there. I don't see this as much different than if our country as a whole would be unable to go into the Rockies or out to the ocean to rescue someone or deal with any issues in these areas. Our military should be capable of performing throughout our country, not just in select areas. Quote "Although the world is full of suffering, it is full also of the overcoming of it" - Hellen Keller "Success is not measured by the heights one attains, but by the obstacles one overcomes in its attainment" - Booker T. Washington
jbg Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 Private industry isn't a fan of investing in areas without infrastructure. That's why China is more successful than India. Private industry does not care about the long term viability of an area, but only profitability.The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built with private money. The U.S.'s transcontinental railroad was also built privately, but with large "right of way" land giveaways to subsidize construction. Then again, the land wouldn't have any value without the railroad actually being built so maybe it wasn't such a giveaway. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Oleg Bach Posted August 22, 2009 Report Posted August 22, 2009 China thinks in long term- they have bought up thousands of acres of land without any real infrastructure - in the Orangeville Ontario area..we don't think ahead - China is a collective that thinks ancestorally and futuristically - through generations yet to come - our investors only think of themselves and immediate children - making sure there is enough money for them to attent private school in Britain - with no thought of investing in places like the arctic unless there is gold to be had. Quote
Argus Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 The Trans-Alaska Pipeline was built with private money. The U.S.'s transcontinental railroad was also built privately, but with large "right of way" land giveaways to subsidize construction. Then again, the land wouldn't have any value without the railroad actually being built so maybe it wasn't such a giveaway. What was the Trans-Alaska Pipeline built for? To get the oil out of Alaska. How did they know there was a lot of oil there? Well, because the US navy and the US geological survey explored and surveyed the reserves. The problem is that no one knows exactly what is up in the north under that ice, and that the national ownership is more than a little uncertain. No one is suggesting the Canadian government build pipelines. But it does need to do all it can to show ownership over the areas it claims are ours. No private venture is going to bother trying to develop anything when it doesn't even know where the national borders lie. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
jbg Posted August 23, 2009 Report Posted August 23, 2009 No private venture is going to bother trying to develop anything when it doesn't even know where the national borders lie.I think except for Hans Island (I think that's the name), which is disputed with Denmark/Greenland the borders are quite well-known. FN claims and the possibility of another NEP are a different story. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Molly Posted August 24, 2009 Report Posted August 24, 2009 http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...rb0834_13-e.htm Quote "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!" — L. Frank Baum "For Conservatives, ministerial responsibility seems to be a temporary and constantly shifting phenomenon," -- Goodale
August1991 Posted August 30, 2009 Author Report Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) The Arctic represents our final frontier, a place of vast wealth and resources.By whose calculation? Yours? If so, put your money on the line - not mine.WOW, do we feel differently about this issue. Am I ever glad that our founding fathers felt differently than you do, or the railway would have stopped in Toronto, and the west would not be part of Canada.Caper, you should know more about Canada's history. The CPR was a private enterprise.There's an avenue Van Horne in Montreal, I think. Have you heard of it? Edited August 30, 2009 by August1991 Quote
Machjo Posted August 30, 2009 Report Posted August 30, 2009 Hey guys, we're in recession and Canada needs a stimulous package. Conservatives are angry as hell over Harper's acquiescing to his stimulous package, and so he needs to make it up by revving up military spending and the only way he can do that is by fear mongering Cold-War-style. Give the man a break. Quote With friends like Zionists, what Jew needs enemies? With friends like Islamists, what Muslim needs enemies?
jdobbin Posted August 30, 2009 Report Posted August 30, 2009 Caper, you should know more about Canada's history. The CPR was a private enterprise.There's an avenue Van Horne in Montreal, I think. Have you heard of it? The CPR received a lot of money from the government of Canada and was paid in land for the building. You call that truly private? Quote
August1991 Posted August 30, 2009 Author Report Posted August 30, 2009 The CPR received a lot of money from the government of Canada and was paid in land for the building.You call that truly private? The CPR received primarily land, and this made it viable - but I'll go with your idea, Dobbin. Canada's first political scandal was Macdonald and the CPR. Think about it.Lesson? Give the land to private developers and let them develop it. ---- IMV, Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1880 are not at all like the NWT/Yukon in 2010. Why? Saskatchewan and Alberta in 1880 were similar to North Eastern Europe in 1880. Similar, but without people. Hard, but filled with opportunity. OTOH, the NWT/Yukon in 2010, like in 1880 and 1770, are places where it has always been hard to live. IOW, please don't give me this Diefenbaker/Harper PR crap that the North is the new West. Quote
jdobbin Posted August 30, 2009 Report Posted August 30, 2009 The CPR received primarily land, and this made it viable - but I'll go with your idea, Dobbin. Canada's first political scandal was Macdonald and the CPR. Think about it. They also received the equivalent of $625 million on todays dollars from the government as loans and then almost that much again when they used all that. Lesson? Give the land to private developers and let them develop it. Lesson, no private business wished to fund this operation. It was the government that was the banker. Quote
August1991 Posted August 30, 2009 Author Report Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) Lesson, no private business wished to fund this operation. It was the government that was the banker.On the contrary, the CPR received land on either side of the railway track.In fact, if you know anything about Canadian politics, Macdonald wanted the the CPR to finance his government. ---- More seriously Dobbin, you confuse Canada with its federal government. As you say, "How could a government fund an operation that a country/society could not fund?" According to you Dobbin, do governments have access to funds from Mars? If a society cannot fund an operation, how can the government of a society fund the operation? ----- All things considered, I prefer investments based on voluntary contributions. What's your opinion, Dobbin? Edited August 30, 2009 by August1991 Quote
jdobbin Posted August 30, 2009 Report Posted August 30, 2009 (edited) On the contrary, the CPR received land on either side of the railway track.In fact, if you know anything about Canadian politics, Macdonald wanted the the CPR to finance his government. If you know anything about Macdonald, you'll know that he wanted to use government money to finance the CPR to finance his government. More seriously Dobbin, you confuse Canada with its federal government.As you say, "How could a government fund an operation that a country/society could not fund?" According to you Dobbin, do governments have access to funds from Mars? If a society cannot fund an operation, how can the government of a society fund the operation? Canada doesn't fund things. Its government does. Our society elects a government that represents those that live within the territory of Canada. All things considered, I prefer investments based on voluntary contributions. What's your opinion, Dobbin? And you believe that voluntary contributions to all government is the way to go? I personally don't. Edited August 30, 2009 by jdobbin Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.