Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Classic conservative thinking ... 'SOMETHING has to be done!' so let's use the biggest hammer possible and smash civil rights to pieces ... criminalize all protest ... there! That works! That's paranoid lunacy. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 A reduction in increases still isn't a decrease. Do you honestly think they could keep increasing transfer payments at three times the rate of inflation indefinitely? God Id like to have a word with your math teacher. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Really? Well, now that you've taken a closer look perhaps you can address that question long ago posed to opponents of the bill: what freedoms are you giving up? That question has been answered here many times. Sorry if you cant keep up. You need to be a little more nuanced in your thinking to understand. Its not as though you will wake up the morning after the bill is passed and all of a sudden notice some great difference. The problem is the bill gives powers to various people to take away rights you have guaranteed in the constitution and charter. And with very little evidence that that potential loss of your rights will in any way enhance your safety. Quote
Smallc Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 God Id like to have a word with your math teacher. You might learn something. Quote
jacee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) A reduction in increases still isn't a decrease. Do you honestly think they could keep increasing transfer payments at three times the rate of inflation indefinitely?What you and some others don't seem to grasp (and Harper doesn't want you to ...)is this: A reduced increase in overall funding IS a decrease in per person funding and individual services IF it doesn't match increases in costs or care required. Show me where the proposed 'increase' addresses - cost inflation and - increasing care needs of an aging population? . Edited April 7, 2015 by jacee Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 That question has been answered here many times. Sorry if you cant keep up. You need to be a little more nuanced in your thinking to understand. Its not as though you will wake up the morning after the bill is passed and all of a sudden notice some great difference. The problem is the bill gives powers to various people to take away rights you have guaranteed in the constitution and charter. And with very little evidence that that potential loss of your rights will in any way enhance your safety. So... you don't actually know? You're basically saying the bill does nothing harmful, except that evil people might be able to misuse it to do something - which you're not sure of and which the SC would overturn anyway. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 You might learn something. Probably not judging by how they taught math to Argus. Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 What you and some others don't seem to grasp (and Harper doesn't want you to ...) is this: A reduced increase in overall funding IS a decrease in per person funding and individual services IF it doesn't match increases in costs or care required. It more than keeps up with inflation, but rising costs are often a product of incompetent management, especially in places like Ontario, where the government has prostituted itself to the unions and continually gives them big, fat raises well above the rate of inflation. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 So... you don't actually know? You're basically saying the bill does nothing harmful, except that evil people might be able to misuse it to do something - which you're not sure of and which the SC would overturn anyway. I actually do know, because I have actually read the bill, which is why I am on side with those who oppose it. Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Probably not judging by how they taught math to Argus. There is absolutely nothing in error about my statement, nor do you have any logical point. You simply don't like the result, don't have an intelligent response, but don't know enough to keep silent about that. 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 April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 I actually do know, because I have actually read the bill, which is why I am on side with those who oppose it. And yet, you are unable to articulate a likely scenario which would result in the loss of our rights. 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
GostHacked Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 And yet, you are unable to articulate a likely scenario which would result in the loss of our rights. The next terror attack within Canada will give us a really good indication of that. Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 The next terror attack within Canada will give us a really good indication of that. That's just another way of saying that maybe you'll figure one out one day. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 There is absolutely nothing in error about my statement, nor do you have any logical point. You simply don't like the result, don't have an intelligent response, but don't know enough to keep silent about that. Other than it is a complete contradiction. But anyway, my intelligent response is 36 billion bucks cut from xfer payments over a decade is in fact a reduction. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 And yet, you are unable to articulate a likely scenario which would result in the loss of our rights. Once again, you have been asleep I guess. For instance, as I did point out previously if you were to go up on Burnaby mountain and protest the pipeline proposal, you could be labelled a terrorist. That apparently has been somewhat amended because it was so egregious, but still a long way to go. Still no proper oversight. Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Other than it is a complete contradiction. But anyway, my intelligent response is 36 billion bucks cut from xfer payments over a decade is in fact a reduction. You can't reinvent the numbers to say that 10 is less than 8 or twenty million is less than seventeen million. The transfer payments are being increased. Period. You can honestly state that the size of the increases has been reduced. You cannot honestly state transfer payments are being cut. 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
GostHacked Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 That's just another way of saying that maybe you'll figure one out one day. Yes indeed. I did. Quote
Argus Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Once again, you have been asleep I guess. For instance, as I did point out previously if you were to go up on Burnaby mountain and protest the pipeline proposal, you could be labelled a terrorist. That apparently has been somewhat amended because it was so egregious, but still a long way to go. Still no proper oversight. There was no way that would have been possible by any interpretation of constitutional law. The wording was not changed because the government ever intended that to happen but because it would remove one of the talking points from the shrill left wing groups attacking the bill. 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
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 You can't reinvent the numbers to say that 10 is less than 8 or twenty million is less than seventeen million. The transfer payments are being increased. Period. You can honestly state that the size of the increases has been reduced. You cannot honestly state transfer payments are being cut. You really do have a problem with math. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 There was no way that would have been possible by any interpretation of constitutional law. The wording was not changed because the government ever intended that to happen but because it would remove one of the talking points from the shrill left wing groups attacking the bill. If they didnt intend it, why did the write it into the bill. I think we know who the king of shrill is though. Quote
jacee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) There was no way that would have been possible by any interpretation of constitutional law. The wording was not changed because the government ever intended that to happen but because it would remove one of the talking points from the shrill left wing groups attacking the bill.Hmm ... the RCMP seem to think pipeline protesters are a target ... and the RCMP are the ones who will make arrests under c-51.anti-petroleum-movement-a-growing-security-threat-to-canada-rcmp-say In highly charged language that reflects the governments hostility toward environmental activists, an RCMP intelligence assessment warns that foreign-funded groups are bent on blocking oil sands expansion and pipeline construction, and that the extremists in the movement are willing to resort to violence. Edited April 7, 2015 by jacee Quote
Smallc Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 Other than it is a complete contradiction. But anyway, my intelligent response is 36 billion bucks cut from xfer payments over a decade is in fact a reduction. The program never existed at 6% beyond 2014 so your logic is even more flawed. Quote
Bryan Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 (edited) You really do have a problem with math. You're the one who thinks 6 + 3 is a subtraction problem. Edited April 7, 2015 by Bryan Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 The program never existed at 6% beyond 2014 so your logic is even more flawed. You should talk to Bryan, apparently both of you have it wrong. Quote
Big Guy Posted April 7, 2015 Report Posted April 7, 2015 So you cannot leave the country unless you get permission if you are going to certain parts of the world - just a little restriction of personal freedom - big deal. This terror bill has a few restrictions on freedom - just a few - big deal. "The best way to take control over a people and control them utterly is to take a little of their freedom at a time, to erode rights by a thousand tiny and almost imperceptible reductions. In this way, the people will not see those rights and freedoms being removed until past the point at which these changes cannot be reversed." Look up who wrote that. Quote Note - For those expecting a response from Big Guy: I generally do not read or respond to posts longer then 300 words nor to parsed comments.
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.