Is Canada becoming a Communist state?

[Dougie93]

there is actually one Welsh regiment in Canada

the Princess's of Wales Own Regiment of Canada

they changed it to Princess's of Wales,

for Diana Spencer

 

[Iceni warrior]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Britannia has fallen

the Orangemen of Ulster & Upper Canada

last of the Hanoverians

the Thistle, Shamrock, Rose entwine

f*ck the Welsh

Bloody right.

One drunk poet, men singing in choirs and coal is all we've had out of them since the longbow.

The best thing about Wales is the castles the English built to subdue them.

 

 

 

 

[OftenWrong]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Not straightforward.  China could eliminate leaded gas with the stroke of a pen, but only if the leader agrees.  There's no public sphere as ours but it also means no Nimbyism, no lobbying etc.

With your rebuttal #1, that's exactly the kind of obfuscation the communists want you to believe. One person should not have all the say. Communism proves it, since most people in our country or in the USA want to do more to protect the environment. They can't do that if dear leader doesn't say so.

Quote

Also it's more about authoritarianism than Communism.

The difference between USA and China in their approach is crustal clear. You might want to learn more about what is being discussed here, before attempting to muddy the waters.

Here is the famous quote that Mr. Trudeau said about China:
Link

“There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green, we want to start investing in solar’.”

 

He was lying of course. China is not going green or solar. They are going nuclear, but Mr. Trudeau does not like to talk about that.

After Trudeau became prime minister in 2015, that view was reflected in then environment minister Catherine McKenna, repeatedly, unctuously and absurdly praising coal-powered China as a climate change leader.

 

[Dougie93]

I've never had to put up with those ancillary royals meself

I've only ever had HM & The Duke of Edinburgh as Colonel-in-Chief

The 48th Highlanders of Canada & The Royal Canadian Regiment

Orangemen of Upper Canada, Ulster Scots

[Michael Hardner]

4 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

1. With your rebuttal #1, that's exactly the kind of obfuscation the communists want you to believe. One person should not have all the say.

2. Communism proves it, since most people in our country or in the USA want to do more to protect the environment. They can't do that if dear leader doesn't say so.

3. Here is the famous quote that Mr. Trudeau said about China:
Link

“There’s a level of admiration I actually have for China. Their basic dictatorship is actually allowing them to turn their economy around on a dime and say, ‘We need to go green, we want to start investing in solar’.”

1. 2. It wasn't a rebuttal, just a statement of clarification.  Also it doesn't always matter what the people want in a democracy.  Also as I said it's more about autocracy than the economic system.

3. I think that I covered that in my post.  You can't use single instances of outcomes to prove anything.  Trudeau was right, although it's pretty stupid for an ostensible democrat to say that.

 

 

[Dougie93]

8 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

Bloody right.

One drunk poet, men singing in choirs and coal is all we've had out of them since the longbow.

The best thing about Wales is the castles the English built to subdue them.

 

 

 

 

actually, two of my best mates from the Army were Welsh

the Gardiner brothers

Ray &  Dean

they were RM Commando

then they moved to Canada

settled in Burlington Ontario

joined the Argyll & Sutherland Highlanders of Canada

[ExFlyer]

45 minutes ago, Iceni warrior said:

The Rhone in France and the Rhine in Germany are getting too shallow for the big transport barges.

It's not just record temperatures there's also a serious drought going on all over the continent.

The river cruise ships have very shallow hulls. (they are on a Scenic cruise). We did Budapest to Amsterdam several years ago and the Danube, Main and, Rhine were so low in places that we had to change ships 3 times. We got off and changed ships with folks that were going in the other direction.

My Wife said that the vintners are quite pleased with the heat as it apparently stresses the vines and makes for better grapes hence, better wine. Go figure.

The Rhone is OK for now. They will easily make it all the way.

Transport barges have a much deeper hull and displacement, especially when loaded.

[Dougie93]

the Jock who was shot by the terrorist while mounting guard on the Cenotaph at Confederation Square

Corporal Nathan Cirillo

he was an Argyll

at the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them

Edited July 23, 2022 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

10 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

I have said how repeatedly

restricting the speech of politicians and lobbyists by penalizing them for speaking in private

is an obvious restriction of free speech

What restriction exactly? You've said repeatedly there's a restriction without ever once saying what it is exactly and precisely where it is.

Quote

politicians and lobbyists have rights too and you don't get to infringe on them in the name of transparency

Of course they have rights I've consistently repeated that every Canadian has the right to lobby the government.

Quote

your desire to hear those conversations is not more important than their free speech rights

I view it as a responsibility to know what public officials are negotiating and discussing in our name on matters within the public domain.  You are deliberately ignoring the distinctions between public and private and privacy and secrecy and it's as obvious and transparent as the day is long.  The only way to violate people's free speech by listening is to listen secretly without them knowing and that's clearly not what I've ever proposed, ever...not once. You'll have to show me exactly where I did that and not simply say I did otherwise you'll simply be lying and making shit up to blather on about instead of addressing what I actually said.

Lobbyists would retain all the freedom to choose to pitch any idea they like, to request any deferral they wish, ask for bigger permits to pollute for whatever reason they want.   All that would change is that everyone would be aware of the absence of walls and doors restricting the public's right to know what is being discussed in their name, about issues and things that are clearly in their domain as opposed to a private one.

Quote

get a better government transparency plan

Show me one.

Edited July 24, 2022 by eyeball

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Trudeau was right, although it's pretty stupid for an ostensible democrat to say that.

No he is not right, because we do not need that level of authoritarianism to get things done. Yet he ties it to environmentalism, as though a dictatorship is the only way ti get things done.

In fact it’s a bald-faced lie.

US experience demonstrates that. 

The government does not lead. The government provides services and resources.

[Michael Hardner]

7 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

1. No he is not right, because we do not need that level of authoritarianism to get things done. Yet he ties it to environmentalism, as though a dictatorship is the only way ti get things done.

In fact it’s a bald-faced lie.

US experience demonstrates that. 

2. The government does not lead. The government provides services and resources.

1. Leaded gasoline is the example that proves it's sometimes true.

2. They make laws.

[Yzermandius19]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

What restriction exactly? You've said repeatedly there's a restriction without ever once saying what it is exactly and precisely where it is.

Of course they have rights I've consistently repeated that every Canadian has the right to lobby the government.

I view it as a responsibility to know what public officials are negotiating and discussing in our name on matters within the public domain.  You are deliberately ignoring the distinctions between public and private and privacy and secrecy and it's as obvious and transparent as the day is long.  The only way to violate people's free speech by listening is to listen secretly without them knowing and that's clearly not what I've ever proposed, ever...not once. You'll have to show me exactly where I did that and not simply say I did otherwise you'll simply be lying and making shit up to blather on about instead of addressing what I actually said.

Lobbyists would retain all the freedom to choose to pitch any idea they like, to request any deferral they wish, ask for bigger permits to pollute for whatever reason they want.   All that would change is that everyone would be aware of the absence of walls and doors restricting the public's right to know what is being discussed in their name, about issues and things that are clearly in their domain as opposed to a private one.

Show me one.

you are preventing them from speaking in private

that is restricting their free speech

how are you this obtuse?

just because they are lobbyists or politicians

doesn't mean they should have no right to speak to each other in private

the public's "right to know" doesn't trump free speech

you are just to lazy to come up with a plan that doesn't restrict free speech

Edited July 24, 2022 by Yzermandius19

[eyeball]

3 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

you are preventing them from speaking in private

Secret you mean.

Quote

that is restricting their free speech

No it isn't.

Quote

 

how are you this obtuse?

just because they are lobbyists or politicians

doesn't mean they should have no right to speak to each other in private

 

That's right.

Quote

the public's "right to know" doesn't trump free speech

Correct.

Quote

you are just to lazy to come up with a plan that doesn't restrict free speech

And you can't stand transparency.

How much are you paid as a lobbyist anyway?

[OftenWrong]

5 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Leaded gasoline is the example that proves it's sometimes true.

That is simply a product that was removed from the market. It’s not an activity, like sorting trash or reducing power consumption. 

[Michael Hardner]

36 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

That is simply a product that was removed from the market. It’s not an activity, like sorting trash or reducing power consumption. 

Okay but the result was still achieved much faster with a single decision point. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly.

[OftenWrong]

16 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Okay but the result was still achieved much faster with a single decision point. I don't know how to explain this any more clearly.

No need to explain more clearly. It's not that I don't get you, I do not agree that government can efficiently achieve results, independently of the actions of citizens. That should not be the role of government, in most if not all cases.

[blackbird]

Government should not be trying to lead in moral issues.  They have proven over and over they have no morals.  The blind leading the blind.

[Michael Hardner]

52 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

I do not agree that government can efficiently achieve results, independently of the actions of citizens. That should not be the role of government, in most if not all cases.

Except the government passes laws. So individual decisions have limited impact in those domains. In the general case, though, I do agree with you.