Government to pay LGBTQ $100 million

[Guest]

5 hours ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

I never brought in Muslims but I told her it is not limited to Muslims as is evident above.

You wish!!!!! Warning for what. For being against bigotry?

Oh, I see.  When you said "her kind" you weren't talking about her religion so much as her bigotry.  Now I understand.

You could still be punished...

[CITIZEN_2015]

3 hours ago, bcsapper said:

Oh, I see.  When you said "her kind" you weren't talking about her religion so much as her bigotry.  Now I understand.

You could still be punished...

What?? How the hell would I know about her religion!!!!!!!!. Is that in her handle or something? I have no idea what her religion is.

being punished for what??!!!!! for standing up to a clear case of bigotry when someone calling a segment of society who are different (born differently or have chosen a different preference) as perverts? As I said, you wish.

Edited December 6, 2017 by CITIZEN_2015

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What?? How the hell would I know about her religion!!!!!!!!. Is that in her handle or something? I have no idea what her religion is.

being punished for what??!!!!! for standing up to a clear case of bigotry when someone calling a segment of society who are different (born differently or have chosen a different preference) as perverts? As I said, you wish.

Calm down, lad, calm down.  I don't wish.  Why would I wish?  It's just a bit of a joke on here how she can get away with saying stuff others would not.  I've also heard that those taking her to task for such found themselves inexplicably on the receiving end of various punishments.  For picking on the poor waif, I suppose.  Maybe you weren't on here enough to notice. 

[CITIZEN_2015]

Okay I didn't know but if true then being punished for taking on someone rightfully will put off posters and postings. That hasn't happemed to me but I will close my account if I am pinished for standing up to a clear case of bigotry on her part. Yes I do respect females. I think females are super-intelligent and deserve our full respect but I have no tolarence for bigotry.

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/29/2017 at 7:16 PM, Jariax said:

1) Will the government be sued for not allowing gay marriages? Will they be sued for allowing discrimination against trans people in housing and employment? Will they be sued for not allowing people to use their preferred pronouns on all correspondence? Fifty years from now, will bigamists and incestuous couples be suing the government because they weren't allowed to be married/because they were imprisoned?
 

2) We need to put a statute of limitations on the egregious lawsuits that all taxpayers are on the hook for, as values change over the years, and we look back twenty years ago, and realize some of the things we did were wrong. 

1) You're taking the 'slippery slope' argument to the extreme.  The answer, I guess, is 'maybe' ?  People have the right to sue.  The onus would be on them to show financial impact of the government's actions.  With having your career 'ruined', it's not that hard to do.

2) I don't think how you could legally do this.

[Michael Hardner]

On 11/29/2017 at 11:34 PM, cannuck said:

my basic right to good government and reasonable administration has been violated.  Can I sue the drama teacher for that?  I am not going to kill a Yank to get the whole $10MM, since I can settle out of court for a million or so for the harm done to me.

You don't understand the legal system.  You don't win lawsuits because your unreasonable outrage wasn't sated, you have to show damage.  Sorry.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

You don't understand the legal system.  You don't win lawsuits because your unreasonable outrage wasn't sated, you have to show damage.  Sorry.

Damage is easy:  national debt and annual costs to pay for massive bureaucracy.  Personal damages:  tax bill and value of time wasted dealing with inept idiots.

As to "not understanding the legal system" once can sue for other than financial damage or redress.

Edited December 7, 2017 by cannuck

[taxme]

On 12/5/2017 at 1:14 AM, August1991 said:

$100 million "earmarked" for compensation to LBGTQ2 people. Why only $100 million? How did a federal bureaucrat arrive at that round number? Why not $200 million, or $2 billion?

Maybe we owe LBGTQ2 people $300 billion. Maybe Trudeau should "earmark" $300 billion for these people.

In the case of Khadr, why $10 million? Why not $100 million?

Who invents these numbers? Trudeau Jnr is writing cheques - but using the credit cards of other people.

My fear: Justin Trudeau is bi-polar, like his mom. 

And he is a destroyer of all things moral and decent to boot. JT is just a spoiled little rich feminist brat who has been given the opportunity to be able to blow taxpayer's tax dollars like it was all his own money. And no doubt there will be more money candy ready and waiting to be handed out as soon as the next whiny crybaby/crybabies come along and cries that someone has hurt their feelings, and they want  some of that apology money. It will never end with these politically correct liberal phony politicians who could careless as to how they go about blowing tax dollars like there is no tomorrow. Trudeau is an @#$%^&*. 

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, cannuck said:

...national debt and annual costs to pay for massive bureaucracy.  Personal damages:  tax bill and value of time wasted dealing with inept idiots.

Yeah, no.  You're not being realistic.  

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, taxme said:

And he is a destroyer of all things moral and decent to boot. JT is just a spoiled little rich feminist brat who has been given the opportunity to be able to blow taxpayer's tax dollars like it was all his own money. And no doubt there will be more money candy ready and waiting to be handed out as soon as the next whiny crybaby/crybabies come along and cries that someone has hurt their feelings, and they want  some of that apology money. It will never end with these politically correct liberal phony politicians who could careless as to how they go about blowing tax dollars like there is no tomorrow. Trudeau is an @#$%^&*. 

 

I'm astounded that you still haven't applied a 2nd amendment solution to your issues.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yeah, no.  You're not being realistic.  

Abouit as realistic as the idiotic crap the the Liberals have pulled over the last year or so.  The difference is: the debt these people created in their bungled efforts to buy votes that is left behind for my grandchildren to pay is quite real.

Edited December 8, 2017 by cannuck

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Abouit as realistic as the idiotic crap the the Liberals have pulled over the last year or so.  The difference is: the debt these people created in their bungled efforts to buy votes that is left behind for my grandchildren to pay is quite real.

No, not at all.  You aren't being remotely real.

[Bonam]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Abouit as realistic as the idiotic crap the the Liberals have pulled over the last year or so.  The difference is: the debt these people created in their bungled efforts to buy votes that is left behind for my grandchildren to pay is quite real.

Don't worry, no one is ever paying back any debt. The debt will just grow ever larger until nations decide to default. There is no real harm done to the nation by defaulting on its debt, so why pay it when you can just forget about it? 

[cannuck]

7 hours ago, Bonam said:

Don't worry, no one is ever paying back any debt. The debt will just grow ever larger until nations decide to default. There is no real harm done to the nation by defaulting on its debt, so why pay it when you can just forget about it? 

this depends on WHO is holding that sovereign debt.  It is not true that default is without consequence, as the cost of further borrowing becomes high, or impossible (to me, BTW, the best thing that could happen - I see no genuine reason for public debt at all).

Inflation will not necessarily take care of debt.   It is more useful to look at debt/GDP ratio, but even that ignores that economists (IMHO the most inept discipline short of civil engineers who would put steel rebar in concrete) measure not only productive values, but speculative activity.  My arguement is that if no wealth is created, speculative gains are not gains at all, but simply re-distribution of wealth.   IF they cause an increase in the money supply (and they do) the resultant new issue of fiat currency results in new debt - that is a pent up inflationary force.  When other central banks prop up various currencies for practical reasons, that currency and all pegged to it (either formally or simply in fact) are far overvalued until those forces are realized - usually in a crash.  Why that is important in this context is that the largest of all public debt is the US, and the greenback is held up by most central banks since they hold so much of THEIR assets defined in USD, they must intervene to hold it up.  But one should ask why this is the case?  The answer is that what is unique about the USD is that they have never defaulted on sovereign debt (even the non-war debt of the Confederacy IIRC) thus established hegemony for the Greenback.

Its a roller coaster, but if you want to see what happens when a truly shakey debt situation gets out of hand, look at Venezuela.  It holds the largest proven oil reserves on the planet, but due to mismanagement of debt - mostly the THREAT of default - people can't buy enough food, their oil company can not raise capital and can barely operate.  Russia holds a big chunk of the debt of Citgo (subidiary of PDVSA) and in the event of default, WILL take that asset from the people of Venzuela.  

Sorry to ramble, but this opens an incredbily large bag of issues.  Starting to wander too far off topic.

[Michael Hardner]

Thread drift.  Anyway $100M is less than 1% of 1% of our debt.  Prioritize, if you want to discuss money.

 

Suing your government for incurring expenses that you don't agree with is not real.  This would open the door to suits by any citizen for any part of the debt, or 1.2 trillion (Debt in $) X 36M (population).  That's about 43 Quintillion (with a 'Q', and not 'Quadrillion') potential lawsuits.

Next time, go lie on a grassy hill and count the stars instead of posting it here, I say...

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Next time, go lie on a grassy hill and count the stars instead of posting it here, I say...

Geez, I didn't realize you were a JFK conspiracy tinfoil hat type.

[Bonam]

4 hours ago, cannuck said:

this depends on WHO is holding that sovereign debt.  It is not true that default is without consequence, as the cost of further borrowing becomes high, or impossible (to me, BTW, the best thing that could happen - I see no genuine reason for public debt at all).

I dunno, Iceland defaulted on its debt with no seeming long term ill effect. Granted, Canada's economy is about 100x bigger, so it would cause a bigger perturbation on the global economy, but the average Canadian's daily life would be entirely unaffected by a sovereign debt default, except if they hold some government bonds that would become worthless. 

[cannuck]

1 hour ago, Bonam said:

I dunno, Iceland defaulted on its debt with no seeming long term ill effect. Granted, Canada's economy is about 100x bigger, so it would cause a bigger perturbation on the global economy, but the average Canadian's daily life would be entirely unaffected by a sovereign debt default, except if they hold some government bonds that would become worthless. 

The PIIGS were a different case altogether, and Iceland was the smallest bit of that deal - not exactly a world leader in much other than ice.  IMHO, the whole episode was the Euro banks making sure the Euro never gained hegemony.  You have to remember: they all share a great deal of ownership by international banksters, but there is only one place on the planet where they actually own the central bank.   A strong Euro that continued to gain credibility was a threat to the Greenback - and that would have release the pent up inflationary forces from increasing the money supply to pay for the synthetic, toxic instruments.   I think, once EEC central bankers realized that the chartered banks had their way with them, nobody was going to make a big deal out of Iceland.  Iceland was in the Euro zone, but NOT a Euro currency player - but the exposure of its banks was mostly in Europe in Euros.

BTW:  The default in Iceland was the banks, not the sovereign debt if I remebmer correctly.  Banks had grown far larger than the economy, and when they crashed, the central bank didn't have the financial ability to BE a central bank.  That is not the same as a sovereign default at all.

[taxme]

17 hours ago, eyeball said:

I'm astounded that you still haven't applied a 2nd amendment solution to your issues.

Canada needs a 1st and 2nd amendments added to our so-called Canadian constitution. The 1st amendment would be a tough one to try and get in Canada because our politically correct politicians do not believe that Canadians should have the right to freedom of speech. Our dear leader politicians fight against free speech in Canada every day. And the charter or rights says that we have freedom of speech but in reality Canadians do not. M 103 is a prime example of that. 

Our right to own guns is always under attack by the liberal elite in Canada. Politicians never seem to get it that no matter how many times they try to control guns, the bad guys are not going to register them. Gun control is just another waste of taxpayer's tax dollars which the liberal Marxists are good at doing like every thing else those liberals do to try and waste taxpayer's tax dollars. The liberal party should change their name to the liberal waste your tax dollars party. Works for me.  

[taxme]

15 hours ago, Bonam said:

Don't worry, no one is ever paying back any debt. The debt will just grow ever larger until nations decide to default. There is no real harm done to the nation by defaulting on its debt, so why pay it when you can just forget about it? 

Time for a Canadian jubilee. Let's start all over again from scratch, and let's then try and keep the liberals from ever forming a government again. Works for me. 

[taxme]

6 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Thread drift.  Anyway $100M is less than 1% of 1% of our debt.  Prioritize, if you want to discuss money.

 

Suing your government for incurring expenses that you don't agree with is not real.  This would open the door to suits by any citizen for any part of the debt, or 1.2 trillion (Debt in $) X 36M (population).  That's about 43 Quintillion (with a 'Q', and not 'Quadrillion') potential lawsuits.

Next time, go lie on a grassy hill and count the stars instead of posting it here, I say...

If the government wants to apologize to everybody so be it but there will be no more compensation for ones hurt feelings. That should stop all of this free money apology candy chit being handed out anymore. After all, why should I pay for something that I had no hand in. Take the money from the politicians pay checks. Then I am sure that all this apology money would come to a stop toute suite. 

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, taxme said:

Our right to own guns is always under attack by the liberal elite in Canada. 

Held in thrall by the enemy you mean and you're basically waiting for your enemy to say its okay to take up arms against it.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

Our right to own guns is always under attack by the liberal elite in Canada.

Mine isn't.  I m thinking about buying a handgun, maybe a really big one.  And no-one can stop me.

Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahahahahaha

[Ginsy]

On 11/30/2017 at 10:15 AM, Altai said:

Yes this is a good idea. This money should be spent to threat these perverts and help them to maintain their lives as normal persons.

You know, you can take whatever stance you would like to on this issue, or any issue for that matter, but it definitely helps to do so in a mature and reasonable way. As someone who agrees with the government on this matter, I'd be a lot more open to hearing your side of the debate if you presented your argument in a way that is actually respectable. Jumping to ad hominem without any justifications for your point really tarnishes its credibility. Try again maybe? 

[August1991]

On 12/7/2017 at 9:31 PM, eyeball said:

I'm astounded that you still haven't applied a 2nd amendment solution to your issues.

2nd amendment?

You mean, "For a well-ordered militia, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed..."

=====

1. As a Canadian, I am understanding but ambivalent about codes/charters/rights. I prefer fudges. The 2nd amendment is a good example. It should be repealed.

2. Should every individual have the right to have an RPG or a tactical nuclear weapon? I don't want to be the first kid on my street to be the last kid on my street.

 

Edited December 9, 2017 by August1991