myata Posted February 7 Author Report Posted February 7 20 hours ago, suds said: You will also give a voice to the fringe lunatic parties that are bound to appear It saddens me much that being given the privilege to use the eyes and the brain, for free too you chose, voluntarily and deliberately, to abandon them by repeating the dumbest coin phrase, thoughtlessly rather than use your own eyes and so on. Just look, history made it easy for you (and the likes of you): you don't have to do extensive research, sit in libraries, look for and extract hidden knowledge. All has just played before your eyes, sadly, to little avail: 1. The political system, detached from the reality of the society experiences inevitable decay and corruption, including moral, of principles and values. 2. Authoritarian cult takes over one of the two default "parties". Some morally corrupt politicians (see p.1) see nothing wrong with cooperating with it for own gain. 3. It lies its way to the power and that spells the end of democracy. Any normal political entity is bound to observe and follow some minimal standard of truth and objectivity. Obviously the cult has no such limits. It can spell, spread and repeat any lie including most outrageous ones. This creates an uneven playing field and so it eventually lies its way to the near-absolute power. A logical, mathematical proof that binary political system will end democracy. Just verified in practice, real life right before your eyes. Sadly, to no avail. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Aristides Posted February 7 Report Posted February 7 19 hours ago, CdnFox said: It was that so high for a reason and it failed and the second one also failed and no it was not designed to fail And then all the other provinces that have brought referendums it has failed. Those who support the lunacy always come up with reasons why it's failed and how it's not the fault of PR that it's failed. PR is a horrible system. It takes an already weak system, democracy, and weakens it further. PR is Governance by committee. It prioritizes showboating and special interest groups and it fractures nations more than anything. There needs to be a government with a clear mandate. That's when countries work best. Sure, in our current situation we frequently see minority governments but we also can give majorities to those parties we feel deserve it. The more you get into proportional representation the farther away you get from the idea of one person representing one area and being held to account. The party becomes more and more in charge and the politician becomes less and less accountable It's just not a good system. If you want more representation by the 'non winning' parties there are much better ways to do it. The second was designed to fail. Three options were given and one had to get more than 50% of the vote. Two of the options had details that were still to be worked out later. How are you supposed to vote for something like that. The first vote was also designed to fail , the bar was set ridiculously high and it failed even though a large majority voted for it. Quote
eyeball Posted February 7 Report Posted February 7 (edited) 7 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Imagine yourself as a company bidding for a contract and having to prove you meet the requirements buy providing company sources, costs, intellectual property, production secrets etc and I, as the other competing company getting that information? How would you like that?? I wouldn't so I'd expect there to be an auditable process for recording who looked at what I submitted and when and where etc...a chain of custody sort of process to protect my interests. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in place already like that. But let's say there was a question of impropriety along the way when it came to light you as the winning contractor had a fiance who's girlfriend's father was a senior government official in charge of the bureaucrat awarding the contract and who pressured the bureaucrat to award the contract to you. I'm guessing you'd like to have a 'private' meeting with your fiance's girlfriend's father down at the club around the 18th hole to see about having the person looking into the allegations fired and that everything gets hushed up. Here's another scenario. Your fiance's girlfriend's father is caught and now the Cabinet minister in charge of him is being pressured by the Premier to make the issue go away. Worse, I'm suing the government, going to the press making a big stink and now the government is sinking in the polls, chaos breaks out in the legislature, triggering a prorogation and loss of public trust, a waste of taxpayers money and an election. How do you think the fed up hapless voter who's seen it all before feels about all this and what about his interest in just seeing the buses run on time and enjoying some relative certainty that he can trust the system. So after decades of this and the population is right pissed off and electing angry people like themselves to power and everything feels like it's turning to shit and causing people to feel like burning it all to the ground... Corruption is like rust that never sleeps. Am I getting thru to you at all or do you just not give a shit? Edited February 7 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Dougie93 Posted February 7 Report Posted February 7 On 2/6/2025 at 6:38 AM, Michael Hardner said: Even the feeble pre-industrial country of Vietnam was able to stand up against the behemoth when it counted. at the cost of 3.3 million Vietnamese killed, 10% of the population followed by a famine which lasted through the 70's into the 80's until the death of Vietnamese dictator Le Duan in 1986 when Vietnam came back to America with cap in hand, seeking to rejoin the Hegenomy in the face of China, which was Vietnam's arch enemy all along now the Vietnamese youth couldn't care less about the war, thus I somehow doubt that the Normies in the drive thru at Tim Horton's are eager to follow you on this sort of round trip journey particularly when approaching half of Canadians under forty are prepared to surrender to America right now Quote
herbie Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 I live in a small town and bought my vape pods from a well known chain grocery store. They ran out of my flavour in September, and since then every single pod on the shelves was bought. So was every single disposable vape. The clerk, the manager of that department and the store supervisor repeatedly promised to look into it. None did. I also uncovered their markup is over 100% and the last time I asked about them I was told 'nobody buys them'. Sold out two full shelves at massive markup but no one bought them. My wife passed and I tried to change the name on the satellite tv to mine. After over a dozen calls, the emailed bills come to my email addy addressed to her and the paper promos and updated decoders came in the mail addressed to my first name and her maiden name. I f*cken gave up trying. Many members of my family use thier second name, and my mother at 86 and me in my late 60s were told our names were 'wrong' and refused paperwork by banks, insurance agencies and motor vehicles. And you think you can fix this in govt when it's pandemic everywhere? No one anywhere will even correct a computer entry because it's not their job or do anything whatsoever because it's policy. Dream on about fixing things. Dream even harder if you think govt will get better if you cut pay and take benefits away. 1 Quote
CdnFox Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 7 hours ago, Aristides said: The second was designed to fail. Three options were given and one had to get more than 50% of the vote. Two of the options had details that were still to be worked out later. How are you supposed to vote for something like that. The first vote was also designed to fail , the bar was set ridiculously high and it failed even though a large majority voted for it. It wasn't designed to fail in the slightest. And it's not like the issue hadn't been debated plenty before it was voted on a second time. And why in god's name would you change the system with only 50% of the people saying that they wanted to change? The two normal standards for that kind of thing even in our current civil law is 2/3 or 3/4 depending. And it's not the only province where it's failed. Every other province that's tried to bring it in had it voted down as well. It is a bad idea, and when people really think about it they realize it's a bad idea. It doesn't actually improve representation, all it does is complicate bureaucracy and feed the politicians even more slop at the trough. It eliminates accountability and the country becomes run by committee. "Designed to fail" Is basically just your nice way of saying you think people are too stupid. They're not. Intelligent people look at the idea and say that is not our best option. What even would it be trying to achieve? Like I said, if you want better representation for those whose party did not win there are definitely better ways to do it. A country needs one government that has a mandate and the authority to execute. Well you may occasionally have minority governments if they are the most common form of government you wander into disaster as we have seen in the last few years. First pass the post is the far more effective system Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
myata Posted February 8 Author Report Posted February 8 Canadian public and Liberals have a once in a lifetime (optimistic) or the last one (realistic) chance and opportunity to make a necessary and long overdue meaningful renewal of the federal politics. With time, provinces would follow. If we let it sleep away in procrastination and endless talking, the writing is on the wall. 1 Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
ExFlyer Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 (edited) 21 hours ago, eyeball said: I wouldn't so I'd expect there to be an auditable process for recording who looked at what I submitted and when and where etc...a chain of custody sort of process to protect my interests. I'd be surprised if there wasn't something in place already like that. But let's say there was a question of impropriety along the way when it came to light you as the winning contractor had a fiance who's girlfriend's father was a senior government official in charge of the bureaucrat awarding the contract and who pressured the bureaucrat to award the contract to you. I'm guessing you'd like to have a 'private' meeting with your fiance's girlfriend's father down at the club around the 18th hole to see about having the person looking into the allegations fired and that everything gets hushed up. Here's another scenario. Your fiance's girlfriend's father is caught and now the Cabinet minister in charge of him is being pressured by the Premier to make the issue go away. Worse, I'm suing the government, going to the press making a big stink and now the government is sinking in the polls, chaos breaks out in the legislature, triggering a prorogation and loss of public trust, a waste of taxpayers money and an election. How do you think the fed up hapless voter who's seen it all before feels about all this and what about his interest in just seeing the buses run on time and enjoying some relative certainty that he can trust the system. So after decades of this and the population is right pissed off and electing angry people like themselves to power and everything feels like it's turning to shit and causing people to feel like burning it all to the ground... Corruption is like rust that never sleeps. Am I getting thru to you at all or do you just not give a shit? There is an auditable chain of events but, as i have said, it is proprietor to the government and bidder.Also, there is never only one person or even department that looks at the bids. Sometimes, like in majr crown projstcs, 5 departmets plus the PM staff see it. " Your fiance's girlfriend's father" ? Seriously??? that is just a rectal pluck to make....oh, no point LOL There is no "hapless voter" . Business is done this way be it public or private business. You, (if you are the hapless voter) as a voter or as a consumer or as a custoer have no right to see how the business is run. Even stock holders do not and will never see the contact bids. Only people with inane perceptions think they can know the details of the deals. Your sense of entitlement has taken you off the deep and. You are a nobody and you have no right to see details. Your MP can and they cannot even divulge details, by law . Get over yourself...you are nobody LOL "Am I getting thru to you at all" or do you truly think you are important enough to be told about proprietary business deals? I cannot get over people like you that in some way think you are deserving or entitled of proprietary and classified and priviledged information. Fact is, you are not and never will be in private enterprise or public business.LOL Edited February 8 by ExFlyer Quote It can be dangerous to believe things just because you want them to be true. - Sagan
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 1 hour ago, ExFlyer said: Your fiance's girlfriend's father" ? Seriously??? that is just a rectal pluck to make....oh, no point LOL It happens all the time Former fisheries minister granted Arctic surf clam licence to company linked to wife's cousin https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4820213 The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...I recall decades ago when Dominic's father Romeo was in charge of fisheries and without fail when it came to allocating opportunity to catch salmon Galen Weston Sr. fleet of boats always got the lion's share. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 2 hours ago, ExFlyer said: Your sense of entitlement has taken you off the deep and. Imagine how cheated LaBlanc's wife's cousin must have felt after her entitlement was withdrawn. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
ExFlyer Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 (edited) 2 hours ago, eyeball said: It happens all the time Former fisheries minister granted Arctic surf clam licence to company linked to wife's cousin https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.4820213 The apple doesn't fall far from the tree...I recall decades ago when Dominic's father Romeo was in charge of fisheries and without fail when it came to allocating opportunity to catch salmon Galen Weston Sr. fleet of boats always got the lion's share. Man, you are out to lunch. You see conspiracy at every turn LOL No one owes you anything. 1 hour ago, eyeball said: Imagine how cheated LaBlanc's wife's cousin must have felt after her entitlement was withdrawn. OMG....get over yourself LOL Done with you and this discussion .... you think far too much of yourself. Fact, is, you are nothing in the scheme of things Edited February 8 by ExFlyer Quote It can be dangerous to believe things just because you want them to be true. - Sagan
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 1 minute ago, ExFlyer said: Man, you are out to lunch. You see conspiracy at every turn LOL You see honesty and integrity everywhere you look. 3 minutes ago, ExFlyer said: Fact, is, you are nothing in the scheme of things It must be galling to see your betters being investigated. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
herbie Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 Wife's cousin? OMG the horror, the corruption. My grandfather's best friends uncle was a Judge so therefore that traffic cop who let me off with only a warning must've been in on it. OMG I'm part of the problem.... 1 Quote
eyeball Posted February 8 Report Posted February 8 1 hour ago, herbie said: Wife's cousin? OMG the horror, the corruption. Yeah, you're right...granting a $24 million opportunity is just another nothing burger. It's terrible what Danielle Smith and the Alberta government are being put thru don't you think? Just a piddling $600 million in public funds making tongues wag there, $650 million in Doug Ford's case and a billion with the Liberal Green Slush Fund. But yeah imagine anyone thinking the public has any business sticking it's nose into any of it. 🤣 It's downright woke when you really think about it. 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
herbie Posted February 9 Report Posted February 9 22 hours ago, eyeball said: Yeah, you're right...granting a $24 million opportunity is just another nothing burger. Conflicts pertain to YOU and your immediate family. Stretching the law to claim it extends further is entirely conjecture, and has been touted to that extent before. EX what your mother did before you were elected IOW prove said person was granted favour and not the lowest bidder or best qualified. Show a reason they should be excluded from consideration. "Transparency" isn't one. Quote
eyeball Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 3 hours ago, herbie said: Conflicts pertain to YOU and your immediate family. Stretching the law to claim it extends further is entirely conjecture, and has been touted to that extent before. EX what your mother did before you were elected IOW prove said person was granted favour and not the lowest bidder or best qualified. Show a reason they should be excluded from consideration. The conflict of interest commissioner must have found a good reason to rule Leblanc broke the rules. It took him 4 months. 3 hours ago, herbie said: "Transparency" isn't one. I know. It's the lack of transparency that should be. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
herbie Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 59 minutes ago, eyeball said: The conflict of interest commissioner must have found a good reason to rule Leblanc broke the rules. It took him 4 months. If he ruled it was then it was. I was responding to a claim on an internet post, not a ruling. Which also shows there was transparency. We're chatting on an internet forum where over half the posters can't even state clearly what they want or are complaining about. I mean we have a Parliamentary system where you vote for people to make decisions on your behalf. Then demand that they explain reasons for doing something you don't agree with and refuse to accept those reasons. Did you even ask your MP? Or did you just start bawling about tranparency? That's what I see happening here. Quote
eyeball Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 6 minutes ago, herbie said: we have a Parliamentary system where you vote for people to make decisions on your behalf. Then demand that they explain reasons for doing something you don't agree with and refuse to accept those reasons. We have a system where Canadians expect their representatives to stay within the law and the rules when they make their decisions. But, it's clear on some level Canadians must also believe the adage that corruption is a necessary ingredient our system could not function without. Catching someone or blowing a whistle is what's really unforgivable because it just fùcks up the system. So... If Canadians should vote on the basis of what's best for Canada they should vote for whoever is better at getting away with corruption. That said they could also vote for whoever is the most useless at preventing it. Either way works and it cancels out the need to give a shit. Got it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, eyeball said: We have a system where Canadians expect their representatives to stay within the law and the rules when they make their decisions. But, it's clear on some level Canadians must also believe the adage that corruption is a necessary ingredient our system could not function without.\ Not Canadians. Just the liberals. When conservatives felt that the conservative party had become corrupt they wiped it off the face of the map politically within a few years it was gone. The NDP have done that eventually a few times It's only liberal voters and people that support the NDP supporting the liberals who actually are absolutely fine with corruption and as long as they are we're going to have it no matter what Until people like you learn that corruption must be punished with wiping out the party regardless of who else gets in we're going to be stuck in a race to the bottom Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
eyeball Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: When conservatives felt that the conservative party had become corrupt they wiped it off the face of the map politically within a few years it was gone. They never wiped anything off the map they simply changed their name. 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: Until people like you learn that corruption must be punished with wiping out the party regardless of who else gets in we're going to be stuck in a race to the bottom Well, like I've said before I haven't voted for a Liberal in nearly 5 decades so. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
herbie Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 11 hours ago, eyeball said: Well, like I've said before I haven't voted for a Liberal in nearly 5 decades so. Neither have I, but if I lived somewhere it was a Lib vs Tory choice I would come next election. What one calls corruption is quite a subjective decision. Pretending one party is and the other isn't is an entirely stupid decision. And usually an entirely hypocritical one too. Just like the hyperbole of declaring corruption of a system by the scandals of a few. Quote
CdnFox Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 11 hours ago, eyeball said: They never wiped anything off the map they simply changed their name. Well, like I've said before I haven't voted for a Liberal in nearly 5 decades so. Well the thing is you lie about a lot of things, and you defend them here constantly. Soooooo...... Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
eyeball Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 1 hour ago, herbie said: What one calls corruption is quite a subjective decision. Pretending one party is and the other isn't is an entirely stupid decision. And usually an entirely hypocritical one too. Just like the hyperbole of declaring corruption of a system by the scandals of a few. Call it what you will but the public mistrust, misinformation and outright delusion stemming from the evasive secretive nature of our governance is a potent toxin that's poisoning our polity and the organization of our society is breaking down. Good luck if you think an x on a ballot every 4-5 years is all it'll take to mitigate it. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted February 10 Report Posted February 10 2 hours ago, CdnFox said: you defend them here constantly You're just a silly troll who says that about everyone who doesn't fawn over PP the way you constantly do. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
CdnFox Posted February 11 Report Posted February 11 2 hours ago, eyeball said: Call it what you will but the public mistrust, misinformation and outright delusion stemming from the evasive secretive nature of our governance is a potent toxin that's poisoning our polity and the organization of our society is breaking down. Good luck if you think an x on a ballot every 4-5 years is all it'll take to mitigate it. It isn't doing a damn thing to harm society, we know most of what's going on in society doesn't give a crap anyway. If you actually cared about any of this you would be calling night and day for the removal by any legal means of the Trudeau liberals and you would have been doing so starting 6 years ago. Instead you defend them, prop them up, and despite your lies to the contrary I suspect vote for them or the NDP who props them up. You certainly take no action to get rid of them. Which proves that you're just a dishonest hypocrite and are perfectly fine with corruption as long as you're fond of the person being corrupt and he's not an evil dirty conservative Quote There are two types of people in this world: Those who can extrapolate from incomplete data
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.