Freddy Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 Omg! Why can't these people who keep having children just figure out how to adopt a dog already!!! Geeezes. Oh no! A dandelion on my front yard! Kill it!!!! I'm voting Green for sure this election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 13, 2015 Report Share Posted September 13, 2015 If you think the Canadian environment consists solely of my yard you're completely out of touch with Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Freddy, I'm at a loss to see how my post about preserving our wilderness translates into someone's lawn. Did a big bad grown up yell at you? Honey, you need to get a grip and let go of that trauma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) I got a bunch of tree huggers that live all around here. I think it's funny how they all vote green and buy pesticide every year for their lawns. One of them started yelling at my kid for breaking a branch on a tree in my yard lol Edited September 14, 2015 by Freddy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 I got a bunch of tree huggers that live all around here. I think it's funny how they all vote green and buy pesticide every year for their lawns. One of them started yelling at my kid for breaking a branch on a tree in my yard lol Okay, that explains where you are coming from. I guess I'm a tree hugger but my feelings on the Green Party is I would rather hug Claire Martin than a tree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Why would you want our population to increase to 100 million? What are the benefits vs the many drawbacks of overcrowded cities, vanishing farmland, higher pollution, etc? Plus, where are these immigrants going to come from? Even as it stands now over half the population in Toronto and Vancouver are foreign born. Do you want native born Canadians to be a minority in their own country? Not sure what you mean by "native born Canadians". We certainly wouldn't be letting in 60 million foreigners. But they would have children...and THEY would have children and we'd get to 100 million in that fashion.... Once the immigrants have kids...then those kids would be "native born Canadians"...or am I missing something somewhere... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 We have free trade agreements so that we don't have to worry about economies of scale. And low population density costs are related to how spread out over the country we are. Immigration isn't going to change that. Instead Toronto and Vancouver will be cities of ten or fifteen million apiece, and the rest will be jammed into our other already crowded cities. Immigrants aren't settling much in small towns and villages and rural areas. Cities would grow outward and upward... all the new immigrants and subsequent generations 20-30 years from now will not be stuck in cities which are exactly the same as they are today without having gotten bigger. It's up to the cities to plan accordingly. Just because some certain cities aren't handling current growth well (arguably) doesn't mean they will mess it up in the future as well. If you search the Web for news and article you will see many economists stating that prices are higher in Canada compared to the US for many reasons...one of which is that there are a lot fewer people in Canada. Telecommunications...travel...clothes...cars...appliances... http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/8-things-that-cost-more-in-canada-and-why-that-is/ So trade deals are good...they just don't cover everything you suggest that they do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Hey Queen when was the last time Canada was actually attacked by another military? I mean actual boots on the ground. As far as I'm aware other than a couple of mini skirmishes it was 1812 and it was from our neighbours down south. That's over 200 years ago. Can't think of anything else we could be doing with all that money? Although totally agree on your population/environmental position. We live in a very different world than we did 200 years ago and we need a larger military to continue to competently participate in world affairs when force needs to be used. And we do have obligations to NATO and we also like to participate in UN peacekeeping missions. Unfortunately, if we play nice and try fly under the radar with our heads down, other countries will simply push us around. I'm not talking about Canada specifically, but the West in general. Everyone is cutting military spending except the Russians and Chinese. As our influence wanes you don't think they will step into the vacuum? You don't think that they already are? A few years ago nobody might have dreamed that Russia would move into the Ukraine. But they did didn't they? What if they had just taken all of Ukraine and the Baltic States? You must be able to admit that it could have been a possibility. Finally...I'm sick of the old line..."well the US will protect us if we're ever attacked." How pathetic is that???? We cannot be a true voice in the world while we hide behind the military might of the US. No...we cannot afford a military to beat them back if they ever decide to invade us. But we can at least try to have a military which befits the size of our country. I remember a newspaper article not too long ago in which Finland was preparing for a possible crises and sent letter to all 900,000 of it's reservists. Finland has 5.2 million. http://europe.newsweek.com/finish-military-preparing-900000-reservists-crisis-situation-326712 I thought that was interesting. Could Finland whip Canada on the battle field? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freddy Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Okay, that explains where you are coming from.I guess I'm a tree hugger but my feelings on the Green Party is I would rather hug Claire Martin than a tree. The environmentalists around here haven't given me a very good opinion of them. I'm sure some of the tree huggers, aren't total hypocrites. Like the ones who live like hermits far away in the wilderness a existence closely resembling survival of a animal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 John wrote, "No...we cannot afford a military to beat them back if they ever decide to invade us. But we can at least try to have a military which befits the size of our country." Switzerland has one quarter the population of Canada and during the cold war, the Swiss Army could mobilize 1.5 million troops in 72 hours. As for beating them back, I refer you to the Canadian Army's Defence Scheme No. One. It would need to be updated. James Eayers 'In Defence Of Canada' has an abridged version in either Vol. 2 or 3. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 We have free trade agreements so that we don't have to worry about economies of scale. This makes no sense. Free trade agreements don't pay for public goods or deal with natural monopolies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 If you don't like Canada because it doesn't have enough people go live in Bangladesh or anywhere else where you prefer the population density. Leave the Canadian environment alone. This doesn't refute what I wrote. But continue with appeal to motive or appeal to emotion arguments if you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 Everyone is cutting military spending except the Russians and Chinese. As our influence wanes you don't think they will step into the vacuum? You don't think that they already are? Well given how badly the West has handled the Arab spring and the Syrian civil war (funding Islamists) and it was arguably Putin's political maneuvering that prevented Obama & Co from invading Syria to remove the supposed chemical weapons of the Assad regime, I don't really see how Russia gaining more influence is such a big deal. What if they had just taken all of Ukraine and the Baltic States? You must be able to admit that it could have been a possibility. Russia has no reason to do this. Russia doesn't have popular support of Western Ukraine and the Baltic States. It does have popular support of Crimea are arguably Eastern Ukraine. Could Finland whip Canada on the battle field? They would have to cross an ocean to get the the battlefield, so I say no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G Huxley Posted September 14, 2015 Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) John have fun with your military compensation fantasy if you wish, but don't expect me and everyone else to pay for it. In case you haven't noticed but Canadian imperialism is already tearing other countries apart e.g. like it did Libya. Edited September 14, 2015 by G Huxley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted September 14, 2015 Author Report Share Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) Well given how badly ----SNIP---- to get the the battlefield, so I say no. The point about the Ukraine was that this kind of thing can happen unexpectedly. Edited September 14, 2015 by Charles Anthony ----SNIP---- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Not sure what you mean by "native born Canadians". We certainly wouldn't be letting in 60 million foreigners. But they would have children...and THEY would have children and we'd get to 100 million in that fashion.... You have not supported your desire to bring our population to 100 million with real justification. Is it that you admire heavily populated countries like Bangladesh and Nigeria, and think countries with small populations like Finland and Denmark are horrible places? Edited September 15, 2015 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Cities would grow outward and upward... all the new immigrants and subsequent generations 20-30 years from now will not be stuck in cities which are exactly the same as they are today without having gotten bigger. It's up to the cities to plan accordingly. Just because some certain cities aren't handling current growth well (arguably) doesn't mean they will mess it up in the future as well. So less farmland, forest and parks, more concrete jungles with horrendous traffic jams? And how does that help Canadians exactly? If you search the Web for news and article you will see many economists stating that prices are higher in Canada compared to the US for many reasons...one of which is that there are a lot fewer people in Canada. Telecommunications...travel...clothes...cars...appliances... Prices are higher and wages are higher. Poverty is much higher in the US, a nation of 370 million, as is crime. I can't offhand think of one very lage nation doing all that well economically. The ones doing the best I can think of are smaller, more homogenous nations as in Scandinavia, belgium, the netherlands, etc. I think buying toasters for a little less is a pretty poor reason to be tripling the population of Canada with all the inherent risks of social disorder and threats to stability and societal cohesiveness bringing in tens of millions more immigrants would bring. And I do not want to see my city tripling in size, thanks. Developers are already eating away at the greenbelt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 This makes no sense. Free trade agreements don't pay for public goods or deal with natural monopolies. Natural monopolies? What monopolies we have are the product of government regulations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Finally...I'm sick of the old line..."well the US will protect us if we're ever attacked." How pathetic is that???? We cannot be a true voice in the world while we hide behind the military might of the US. No...we cannot afford a military to beat them back if they ever decide to invade us. But we can at least try to have a military which befits the size of our country. I remember a newspaper article not too long ago in which Finland was preparing for a possible crises and sent letter to all 900,000 of it's reservists. Finland has 5.2 million. http://europe.newsweek.com/finish-military-preparing-900000-reservists-crisis-situation-326712 Which should demonstrate that you don't need to have 100 million people to have a strong military. Finland not only has a strong military but also strong social programs. Canadians in general do not feel the need for a strong military, and that is not going to change just because you triple the size of the place. Finland can afford strong social programs and a strong military because Finland, despite being a social democratic nation, has it's public sector under better control. Everyone is reasonably compensated and there is little poverty, but they do not pay their teachers police, firefighters, and mid-level public servants $100k a year. Doctors and nurses are also paid a lot less. Have a look at average monthly salaries in Finland http://www.worldsalaries.org/finland.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-1=e^ipi Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Natural monopolies? What monopolies we have are the product of government regulations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly "A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which it is most efficient (involving the lowest long-run average cost) for production to be permanently concentrated in a single firm rather than contested competitively. This market situation gives the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming cost advantage over other actual and potential competitors, so a natural monopoly situation generally leads to an actual monopoly. This tends to be the case in industries where capital costs predominate, creating economies of scale that are large in relation to the size of the market, and hence creating high barriers to entry; examples include public utilities such as water services and electricity." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socialist Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 No doubt this is good news for the country and shows that Harper and the CPC are the only ones capable of running the show in good times or bad. Unfortunately the average liv has little or no interest in the economy. Rather they are mesmerized by such things as free daycare, Syrian refugees, mindless platitudes and scoldings from Jean Chretien. Who, by the way, should know enough to mind his own business. I know that if I had a hand in bilking the taxpayer of $40 million, I would have sense enough to keep my head down. Surpluses, deficits, debt, income splitting, tax free savings accounts ... these are all subjects that the liv doesn't understand and has absolutely no desire to explore further. They have to be made to understand that a p*ss poor economy always results in higher taxation and, more within their sphere of knowledge, less "free" stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 No doubt this is good news for the country and shows that Harper and the CPC are the only ones capable of running the show in good times or bad. Unfortunately the average liv has little or no interest in the economy. Rather they are mesmerized by such things as free daycare, Syrian refugees, mindless platitudes and scoldings from Jean Chretien. Who, by the way, should know enough to mind his own business. I know that if I had a hand in bilking the taxpayer of $40 million, I would have sense enough to keep my head down. Surpluses, deficits, debt, income splitting, tax free savings accounts ... these are all subjects that the liv doesn't understand and has absolutely no desire to explore further. They have to be made to understand that a p*ss poor economy always results in higher taxation and, more within their sphere of knowledge, less "free" stuff. Amazing. You seem to actually be arguing that the Tories should be in power forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Amazing. You seem to actually be arguing that the Tories should be in power forever.certain groups could be left off the voting lists. Not everyone deserves the ability to vote. We could do this for the safety of our nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 certain groups could be left off the voting lists. Not everyone deserves the ability to vote. We could do this for the safety of our nation. Perhaps we could start with partisans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canada_First Posted September 15, 2015 Report Share Posted September 15, 2015 Perhaps we could start with partisans.I'd rather start with enemies of the state. Traitors to Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.