shoop Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 That's why a free vote in Parliament is the perfect way to deal with the issue. btw, that 1% figure corresponds very well with this board.... It seems the smaller the minority the more concern expressed by some. Religious types represent 20% of all Canadians it was mentioned, yet their concerns for ssm vs unions are trumped by a minority of only 1% of Canadians. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Thanks for getting back on topic. btw are we agreeing for a second time? Won't that drive you homophobe (anti-gay) CPC types crazy when " Sven Rides Again".... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It would tick me off, because I hate thieves and liars and hypocrites. Apparently others have lower standards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 To most everyone; Layton and Van Centre voters included, Svend looks like an opportunist parachuting in from Burnaby to take "easy advantage" of a riding that has a 30% concentration of gays. This riding is far too sophisticated to be taken in by a non-convicted thief - voters here will hold their noses and return Hedy Fry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And because they are sophisticated, they know that one innocent slip of the tongue doesn't mean that they should be holding their noses when voting this fine lady back in. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yeah, just cause someone says he hates jews don't mean anyone should hold anything against him. Just a slip of the tongue, after all. Don't mean a thing. Pay no mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Err, That's going waaaaaay to far. You won't find anything homophobic in any of my posts. Insults of this kind really drag you down into the mud. Do you feel better about your hatred towards the CPC by painting its supporters all with the same, inaccurate brush? Thanks for getting back on topic. btw are we agreeing for a second time? Won't that drive you homophobe (anti-gay) CPC types crazy when " Sven Rides Again".... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Don't mean a thing. Pay no mind. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> EVERYBODY knows that there are KKK sympathizers in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No longer can Jack call the kettle black. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Talk about calling the kettle black .... wasn't it interesting how Jack, out of the blue, turned on a dime and said that private clinics are okey-dokey? Jack never said private clinics are OK... He said that they have been around for a long time, and that he accepts that. He has no problem with private clincs being around, just with PUBLIC funds going to them. Basically, the private, for-profit services are allowed to exist, as long as they do it on PRIVATE funds.... no public funding for them.... And that's always been the NDP position.... Nothing has changed, other than being quoted out of context.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 No longer can Jack call the kettle black. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Talk about calling the kettle black .... wasn't it interesting how Jack, out of the blue, turned on a dime and said that private clinics are okey-dokey? Jack never said private clinics are OK... He said that they have been around for a long time, and that he accepts that. He has no problem with private clincs being around, just with PUBLIC funds going to them. Basically, the private, for-profit services are allowed to exist, as long as they do it on PRIVATE funds.... no public funding for them.... And that's always been the NDP position.... Nothing has changed, other than being quoted out of context.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I don't understand why you would want to limit private care only to the richest people in Canada. You preach about being for the people of Canada, meanwhile you refuse to allow the poor access to better services. Public insurance, which is available to everyone, should be allowed to pay for care in private facilities just the same as being used in a public facility. It's ideas like yours that condemn people to suffer on huge waiting lists, because they're forced into mismanaged government facilities...when private facilities that compete for business could provide infinitely better service to them. Of course, you don't believe that people can make decisions for themselves and their money. You want the government to be there telling us what they're going to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Puh lease. What about all the rhetoric about a *scary* parallel health system? Is this also kinda like Jack not doing a 180 on the Clarity Bill. Oh wait, he did! Jack never said private clinics are OK... He said that they have been around for a long time, and that he accepts that. He has no problem with private clincs being around, just with PUBLIC funds going to them. Basically, the private, for-profit services are allowed to exist, as long as they do it on PRIVATE funds.... no public funding for them.... And that's always been the NDP position.... Nothing has changed, other than being quoted out of context.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Err,That's going waaaaaay to far. You won't find anything homophobic in any of my posts. Insults of this kind really drag you down into the mud. Do you feel better about your hatred towards the CPC by painting its supporters all with the same, inaccurate brush? I'm sorry if I unjustifiedly tarred you with the CPC brush, because you are an avid supporter of the CPC and its policies. One could understand why I might suspect that Harper (and his policies) are homophobe... Just because he voted against including hate crimes against homosexuals in our country's hate crime legislation, and he cant stop thinking about same sex marriage, and, and, and... Then we have the redneck posters on this forum who can't wait to use derrogatory (anti-gay) terms to describe Sven... I'm sure you can understand where one might get the impression that the CPC and its supporters are homophobe... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 He has no problem with private clincs being around. Basically, the private, for-profit services are allowed to exist, as long as they do it on PRIVATE funds. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What would you call that ... "two-tier" healthcare? Isn't that funny how, ALL OF A SUDDEN, Jack Layton is a proponent of two-tier healthcare. That little rascal ... he DID use those private clinics in the past, didn't he? DIDN'T HE? Not that I blame him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 (edited) Hey err, am I missing something? Or did some of your posts get censored, this thread only shows a post at 5pm then 6:25pm today for me. It sounds like you made some controversial comments. Like this one about people just waiting (waiting for what) to use gay bashing terms for Svend. Edited December 7, 2005 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 I don't understand why you would want to limit private care only to the richest people in Canada. You preach about being for the people of Canada, meanwhile you refuse to allow the poor access to better services. The public system pays for public health care.... The private system is privately funded... and that is how it should stay. Public insurance, which is available to everyone, should be allowed to pay for care in private facilities just the same as being used in a public facility. The public system takes anyone, but does not take money from those being served. The private system doesn't take anyone who doesn't pay money. So, if you dont want to pay money out of your pocket, go to the public system. If you don't mind paying out of your pocket, then go to the private system..... It's pretty simple... like you... you should understand it.... It's ideas like yours that condemn people to suffer on huge waiting lists, because they're forced into mismanaged government facilities...when private facilities that compete for business could provide infinitely better service to them. It is not my kind of ideas that condemn people to wait too long for the public system. It's people like Paul Martin who have continually pulled money from our health care system for deficit and corp tax returns that have caused reduction in service. The problems aren't fiscal.... they're fiscal policy.... Of course, you don't believe that people can make decisions for themselves and their money. Noone is telling anyone they cant dip into their pocket to pay for private health care... However, you can't dip into my pocket to pay for private health care for yourself when I've already paid towards the public health care system.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 7, 2005 Report Share Posted December 7, 2005 Yes, err...thanks for simply repeating yourself. You don't want public insurance (eg: OHIP) to cover private care, therefore only those who could afford the "out of pocket" expense could seek it. This is not at all the position I, nor any Conservative supporter I know, endorses. In fact, it's patently absurd to restrict healthcare to the richest people in society. There are certain procedures that should be covered by the public insurance we all pay into. But no, you don't want the poorest people in Canada to have access to quality private care because you're too wrapped up in being anti-corporation to see the benefits. You don't want taxpayers money going to private companies, I understand completely. What you don't want is for people to have a choice. Well, the average person that is. You're perfectly fine with only the richest people in Canada having a choice, since they can pay out of pocket and go to the best private clinics available. Meanwhile, those who depend on the public insurance (which you don't want paying for private care) are stuck in competition-free public clinics, which are horribly lacking quality because they don't need to compete for business. I say it's only fair to allow the average canadian to get public insurance through their taxes, then be able to choose where their money is spent. Afterall, I'm going to spend my money where it's best for me....not where you tell me I have to spend it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 He has no problem with private clincs being around. Basically, the private, for-profit services are allowed to exist, as long as they do it on PRIVATE funds. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What would you call that ... "two-tier" healthcare? Isn't that funny how, ALL OF A SUDDEN, Jack Layton is a proponent of two-tier healthcare. A two-tier health care system would have some services augmented by the person wanting the "faster care" or "better care". Currently, and pre-dating medicare in this country, we have had private health care clinics, radiology labs, etc... This should not come as a shock to any of you CPC types out there. Private "for profit" health care centres are not supposed to be paid for under the Canada Health Act.... And Jack Layton is trying to ensure that public funds go only to public health care.... not private health care, and not two-tier health care... only public health care. He's not going to try to directly shut down any private service and that seems to be the big conroversial statement .... he just won't give them any public money... If they can survive on their own, good for them... and if they can't... oh well... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
err Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Yes, err...thanks for simply repeating yourself. Well, it seems to take you quite a while to catch on to even the simplest concepts.... Maybe if you showed these posts to your mom, she could help to explain them to you.....You don't want public insurance (eg: OHIP) to cover private care, therefore only those who could afford the "out of pocket" expense could seek it. If you want plastic surgery to make your boobs bigger, or maybe a bigger pecker so the guys don't laugh at you, well those aren't necessarily medically necessary surgeries, and you can pay for them yourself.If you have cancer and require chemotherapy, and want to "jump the line" because you know that you are more important that all other Canadians, should we allow you, because you are wealthy, to displace the people who were in the line on front of you.... I would say no. Most people would say no.... And if you really wanted to "jump the line" and go to a private clinic, then you should pay the whole shot out of your own pocket. The waiting lines for medical procedures are as long as they are because there aren't enough doctors, equipment, etc.... The obvious solution is to aquire an adequate supply of what is needed to provide timely, high quality service. But since our government has different priorities, such as buying votes with the money that should purchase medical equipment and doctors, it isn't happening. However, if we were to take money from our public system and give it to the private system, plus a few extra dollars to make sure that the private service makes their profit, there will be even less money in our public coffers to purchase the equipment and doctors necessary to meet our requirements.... This is not at all the position I, nor any Conservative supporter I know, endorses. In fact, it's patently absurd to restrict healthcare to the richest people in society. There are certain procedures that should be covered by the public insurance we all pay into. yes... PUBLIC services, publicly delivered, and publicly paid for....But no, you don't want the poorest people in Canada to have access to quality private care because you're too wrapped up in being anti-corporation to see the benefits. You don't want taxpayers money going to private companies, I understand completely. I would like to see the poorest people in Canada have access to quality PUBLIC care.... rather than giving our public money to private corporations for private profit.... reducing the amount of money for the public system to pay for health care..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shoop Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Err, I appreciate the apology. Alas, you are painting Harper as a homophobe just because he does not support your political views, not because of any overt actions on his part. His opposition to the hate crimes legislation was much more nuanced then you will admit, or maybe can comprehend. He has spoken about SSM once, doesn't sound like repetitive to me. and, and, and what? The issues that cause you to ignorantly insult me aren't the issues I base my vote on. Does that make me a homophobe? Absolutely not. I'm sorry if I unjustifiedly tarred you with the CPC brush, because you are an avid supporter of the CPC and its policies. One could understand why I might suspect that Harper (and his policies) are homophobe... Just because he voted against including hate crimes against homosexuals in our country's hate crime legislation, and he cant stop thinking about same sex marriage, and, and, and... Then we have the redneck posters on this forum who can't wait to use derrogatory (anti-gay) terms to describe Sven... I'm sure you can understand where one might get the impression that the CPC and its supporters are homophobe... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 One could understand why I might suspect that Harper (and his policies) are homophobe... Just because he voted against including hate crimes against homosexuals in our country's hate crime legislation, and he cant stop thinking about same sex marriage, and, and, and... And just because he made a homophobic joke (which he later apologized for) about Svend Robinson in the House of Commons doesn't mean he's a homophobe. These are all just remarkable coincidences. Here's the link: http://cupe.ca/www/EqualityPride/4192 Perhaps Harper supporters will not see his comment, coming from the Leader of the Official Opposition, as inappropriate, or will once again engage in hopeless denial about their baggage-laden leader because: (1) it was mentioned in...gasp...a union website and Harper has written off the union vote anyway (2) it was mentioned by someone with an anti-Harper bias and therefore should be ignored or condemned rather than acknowledged (3) homosexuals are a minority group and CPC erroneously believes that the majority of Canadians are selfish, care only about themselves and don't care about minority rights (4) it happened three years ago and anything that happened years ago is not relevant today except adscam Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Biblio Bibuli Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 He has no problem with private clincs being around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What would you call that ... "two-tier" healthcare? A two-tier health care system would have some services augmented by the person wanting the "faster care" or "better care". Currently, and pre-dating medicare in this country, we have had private health care clinics, radiology labs, etc... This should not come as a shock to any of you CPC types out there. Private "for profit" health care centres are not supposed to be paid for under the Canada Health Act.... And Jack Layton is trying to ensure that public funds go only to public health care.... not private health care, and not two-tier health care... only public health care. He's not going to try to directly shut down any private service and that seems to be the big conroversial statement .... he just won't give them any public money... If they can survive on their own, good for them... and if they can't... oh well... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Calgary Herald says: "With Conservative leader Stephen Harper vowing there would be no two-tier health, and NDP leader Jack Layton acknowledging there may be a place for it, it is beginning to seem like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Where has the real Jack Layton gone?" All the other papers say the same thing. I always thought of Jack Layton as a bit if a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" type of character. This time he turned from Hyde to Jekyll, and that is a good thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Err,I appreciate the apology. Alas, you are painting Harper as a homophobe just because he does not support your political views, not because of any overt actions on his part. His opposition to the hate crimes legislation was much more nuanced then you will admit, or maybe can comprehend. He has spoken about SSM once, doesn't sound like repetitive to me. and, and, and what? The issues that cause you to ignorantly insult me aren't the issues I base my vote on. Does that make me a homophobe? Absolutely not. I'm sorry if I unjustifiedly tarred you with the CPC brush, because you are an avid supporter of the CPC and its policies. One could understand why I might suspect that Harper (and his policies) are homophobe... Just because he voted against including hate crimes against homosexuals in our country's hate crime legislation, and he cant stop thinking about same sex marriage, and, and, and... Then we have the redneck posters on this forum who can't wait to use derrogatory (anti-gay) terms to describe Sven... I'm sure you can understand where one might get the impression that the CPC and its supporters are homophobe... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why is it lately that almost every thread is turned into a 'gay, SSM, homophobe' or similar commentary, is there some agenda here to hijack every thread and turn it into this one issue? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Well, it seems to take you quite a while to catch on to even the simplest concepts.... Maybe if you showed these posts to your mom, she could help to explain them to you..... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Do i really have to put up with this kind of ignorance on this website? I thought Greg was about banning idiocy like this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
normanchateau Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Why is it lately that almost every thread is turned into a 'gay, SSM, homophobe' or similar commentary, is there some agenda here to hijack every thread and turn it into this one issue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point Scriblett. Harper's announcement this weekend in British Columbia that he favours the ongoing criminalization of marijuana, in contrast to the NDP, Liberal and BQ position, shows that he favous putting young people in jail and leaving them with a permanent crimininal record merely for possession of a relatively harmless substance. This has a far greater impact on a much larger number of Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 He has no problem with private clincs being around. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What would you call that ... "two-tier" healthcare? A two-tier health care system would have some services augmented by the person wanting the "faster care" or "better care". Currently, and pre-dating medicare in this country, we have had private health care clinics, radiology labs, etc... This should not come as a shock to any of you CPC types out there. Private "for profit" health care centres are not supposed to be paid for under the Canada Health Act.... And Jack Layton is trying to ensure that public funds go only to public health care.... not private health care, and not two-tier health care... only public health care. He's not going to try to directly shut down any private service and that seems to be the big conroversial statement .... he just won't give them any public money... If they can survive on their own, good for them... and if they can't... oh well... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Calgary Herald says: "With Conservative leader Stephen Harper vowing there would be no two-tier health, and NDP leader Jack Layton acknowledging there may be a place for it, it is beginning to seem like "Invasion of the Body Snatchers". Where has the real Jack Layton gone?" All the other papers say the same thing. I always thought of Jack Layton as a bit if a "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" type of character. This time he turned from Hyde to Jekyll, and that is a good thing. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Speaking of Dr. Jekyll Mr. Hyde behaviour from Layton, an editorialist in today's Windsor Star pointed to Jack Layton showing his support for the Canadian automotive industry. In the next sentence he quoted Jack Layton saying that he doesn't own a car, but him and his wife own 6 bicycles, including a tandem. The editorialist then thanks Jack Layton for doing his part in personally supporting the industry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Why is it lately that almost every thread is turned into a 'gay, SSM, homophobe' or similar commentary, is there some agenda here to hijack every thread and turn it into this one issue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why, yes scriblett, Normie figures if he keeps repeating himself on every thread that he can singlehandedly convince us that Harper is scary. Sort of harping on Harper. All he's managing to do, however, is to start a trend of Normie fatigue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted December 8, 2005 Report Share Posted December 8, 2005 Why is it lately that almost every thread is turned into a 'gay, SSM, homophobe' or similar commentary, is there some agenda here to hijack every thread and turn it into this one issue? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Why, yes scriblett, Normie figures if he keeps repeating himself on every thread that he can singlehandedly convince us that Harper is scary. Sort of harping on Harper. All he's managing to do, however, is to start a trend of Normie fatigue. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hmmm, I put him on 'ignore' something I wouldn't normally do, because I like diversity, but it just gets tiresome having every thread hijacked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.