Canadian politics thread

[Traum]

Originally Posted by SkinnyPupp

lol @ comparing countries to a city state

Not only that, birddog3k is also comparing a generally functioning democracy against an authoritarian regime that hides behind the disguise of a democracy. Of course authoritarian governments are far more efficient than democracies. They just aren't so good when you want to freely speak your mind.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

My point is that anything the government touches will eventually cost tax payers more than the benefits that are provided. Thus, we should limit the amount of power of the state.

Three letters GPS. I think the benefits far out way the original 12 billion the US spent to put the satellites in space and the 750 million it costs every year in upkeep.

[mikemhg]

Originally Posted by welfare

Lol you guys are cherry picking.

This made me laugh out loud, legitimately.

The guy who cherry picks every esoteric article or video he posts is accusing someone else of cherry picking an actual personal experience.

Wow. Give up posting.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

Wow. Give up posting.

so long as soy boy beta cucks like yourself continue to be triggered, i will not

[welfare]

This guy actually thinks he can please everybody. As if aboriginals don't consist of over 600 different nations.
And then there's the rest of the country..

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/14231...1/?jwsource=cl

I wonder if that kitimat project ends up getting sidelined as well.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4782095/e...lng-withdrawl/

The apparent shelving of the WCC LNG project is the latest blow to the West Coast liquefied natural gas export industry which at one time featured about 20 proposals, but has resulted in only one firm commitment to build.

The project had been proposed by Exxon Mobil and its Canadian partner, Imperial Oil Ltd., for Tuck Inlet in the Prince Rupert area on B.C.’s north coast.

Company spokeswoman Julie King said Exxon Mobil and Imperial withdrew the WCC LNG project from the environmental assessment process after careful review.

[J____]

Originally Posted by 68style

I'm not aware of any private companies that would affect my life significantly (unless they were my employer) if they went out of business. Are you aware of how many services the government provides that no one else will and are necessary to your daily life? Also, see my edited post on the false belief that taxes just increase to make up for supposed overages which are NOT POSSIBLE because every organization has a hard cap budget every single year to start April.

Again, super misinformed.

if google went out of business it would affect a significant amount of people. Probably crippling a majority of them

[Tegra_Devil]

His airplane is a stones throw away from me....literally, if i pick up a stone and threw it in the direction of his plane, the RCMP would have no problem accurately hitting my with a few rounds to the chest...

Sweet convoy trucks though!

Good thing i was able to watch the flames game on tv in the hall, and watch the comings and goings at the hanger from the same recliner

[belka]

Originally Posted by welfare

This guy actually thinks he can please everybody. As if aboriginals don't consist of over 600 different nations.
And then there's the rest of the country..

https://globalnews.ca/video/rd/14231...1/?jwsource=cl

I wonder if that kitimat project ends up getting sidelined as well.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4782095/e...lng-withdrawl/

This is getting ridiculous. The FN need to have ONE member that speaks for all of them, kind of like the rest of modern society/nation. Going to a hundred different groups, all with their own interests and views will never get any project approved. Someone elder group will come out from the trees and object and start a blockaid because they weren't "consulted". This country will be fucked economically if we can't get our resources to the market.

Originally Posted by Tegra_Devil

His airplane is a stones throw away from me....literally, if i pick up a stone and threw it in the direction of his plane, the RCMP would have no problem accurately hitting my with a few rounds to the chest...

What does he bomb around in, the dark blue Challenger? Don't think YKA can handle the Airbus.

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Three letters GPS. I think the benefits far out way the original 12 billion the US spent to put the satellites in space and the 750 million it costs every year in upkeep.

Originally Posted by DragonChi

What about government funded research that has developed most, of the technology that we use today?

Governments actually pioneer knowledge, it's companies that take the ground breaking knowledge and refine it, and monetize it.

Originally Posted by Jmac

Using my own experiences is cherry-picking now?

I've worked in the public sector for 5 years, I worked in the private sector for 18 years prior to that.

Both have their pros and cons.

To say, unequivocally that one is better in every way and in every situation is asinine.

Most of you are not worth responding to. Anyone want to actually debate ideas and not be a dick because your precious beliefs have been challenged?

If you think the government is more efficient than the private sector then please read some economics. Some good teachers are Friedman and Hayek.

Basically, all government expenditures have to be paid by tax payer dollars. If you increase expenditure, it has to come from tax payers. Thus, to limit taxes, we have to limit spending and spend wisely! It sounds like common sense because economics is common sense at its core.

Anyway, governments pioneering knowledge is very true. I believe this is a legitimate use of our tax dollars because this is not something the private sector could do due to massive start-up costs. Space travel, the internet, and GPS are good examples. Glad we agree on something.

I also agree with the point having their pros and cons, this is something any reasonable person would agree with. However it begs the question: what roles should the government play and what should be left to the private sector?

In my humble opinion, and as I've stated previously the government of Canada is not only inefficient but it's bloated. ICBC should be closed down. There are too many regulations in every industry. For example, the government should not have any say for the length of cell phone contracts.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

In my humble opinion, and as I've stated previously the government of Canada is not only inefficient but it's bloated. ICBC should be closed down. There are too many regulations in every industry. For example, the government should not have any say for the length of cell phone contracts.

So you are conservative on the political spectrum. Does that make you "right"? (OK, bad pun -- because that does make you "right" )

Just because you believe in conservativism doesn't make you correct. There is value in conservatism, moderatism, socialism, and perhaps even other political ideals. In theory, even communism has its merits. That's why a wide political spectrum exists. The debate is never going to stop because it has been going on for as long as politics itself.

[68style]

The birddog has spoken guys... all 14 posts of him... he knows everything, has studied all the scholars and has taken every single nuance of both the political and economic system into account before delivering his final verdict to us. It's just simple economics guys!

Convert or be labeled unworthy of responding to.

Seriously though, I'm sure somewhere in your post there are many rational thoughts buried in it... and it's not like believing that government can be effective makes you liberal or makes you fiscally irresponsible... but the arrogance of your perceived reality being the only possible perception of the world is clouding any argument that could possibly come of what you're saying. As soon as you say something like "ICBC should be closed down" people's brains just turn off and they dismiss your comment because it's nothing but pitchforks. Where's the analysis? Where's the solution? You apparently know better? I don't think so......... and if you've never worked in the government or been a part of the finance structure of the government, your "opinion" that its bloated in all shapes and forms is based on memes from Facebook and nothing more.

[mikemhg]

How convenient, another new Revscene account that happens to be a conservative, making his first posts within a political thread, on a car enthusiast forum.

This guy's first post was within the Florida shooting thread, and then here.

How convenient

I swear you "right-wing" folks online are always doing the most.

Why does such a political philosophy require so much subterfuge to appear legitimate? Why the fake accounts, why the trolling, it's rampant online on that side, and I hate to use sides. I find it funny it's occurring so often on a site like Revscene nowadays.

[Bouncing Bettys]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

How convenient, another new Revscene account that happens to be a conservative, making his first posts within a political thread, on a car enthusiast forum.

This guy's first post was within the Florida shooting thread, and then here.

How convenient

I swear you "right-wing" folks online are always doing the most.

Why does such a political philosophy require so much subterfuge to appear legitimate? Why the fake accounts, why the trolling, it's rampant online on that side, and I hate to use sides. I find it funny it's occurring so often on a site like Revscene nowadays.

Given that birddog's opinions aren't extreme in any way, I'm not sure why someone would feel the need to hide behind a fake account to share them on this obscure forum. Unless the level of discord has reached the point where even moderate viewpoints will have someone doxxed, deplatformed, fired from the job, etc to the point of homelessness, I don't see the purpose. I don't believe anyone should receive that treatment regardless of how moderate or extreme their views, but it certainly seems our society is reaching that point.

I'm not sure why you are so skeptical given that less than a month ago you and others were welcoming and accepting of opinions from a new account (emililadjet) after she went straight into politics in a thread marking the passing of G. Bush.

I was going to make a big response to counter birddog's stances and his odd debate style of opening with disrespect for others and their opinions, but others beat me to it. However I find it interesting that such disrespect is called out immediately by those who disagree with his opinions while others on here are constantly disrespected and insulted for respectfully sharing similar political opinions to birddog.

[welfare]

Originally Posted by belka

This is getting ridiculous. The FN need to have ONE member that speaks for all of them, kind of like the rest of modern society/nation. Going to a hundred different groups, all with their own interests and views will never get any project approved. Someone elder group will come out from the trees and object and start a blockaid because they weren't "consulted". This country will be fucked economically if we can't get our resources to the market.

Never happen. Some of these tribes couldn't be left in the same room together, let alone agree on a single leader.

[CivicBlues]

Originally Posted by Bouncing Bettys

I'm not sure why you are so skeptical given that less than a month ago you and others were welcoming and accepting of opinions from a new account (emililadjet) after she went straight into politics in a thread marking the passing of G. Bush.

Hey I lean slightly left but even I pointed out to her that her righteous indignation was inappropriate for a memorial thread and that she should find her way off to another board

[Tegra_Devil]

Originally Posted by belka

This is getting ridiculous. The FN need to have ONE member that speaks for all of them, kind of like the rest of modern society/nation. Going to a hundred different groups, all with their own interests and views will never get any project approved. Someone elder group will come out from the trees and object and start a blockaid because they weren't "consulted". This country will be fucked economically if we can't get our resources to the market.



What does he bomb around in, the dark blue Challenger? Don't think YKA can handle the Airbus.

White challenger

The airbus 310? YKA handles much bigger, we've got the C17 occasionally

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by mikemhg

How convenient, another new Revscene account that happens to be a conservative, making his first posts within a political thread, on a car enthusiast forum.

This guy's first post was within the Florida shooting thread, and then here.

How convenient

I swear you "right-wing" folks online are always doing the most.

Why does such a political philosophy require so much subterfuge to appear legitimate? Why the fake accounts, why the trolling, it's rampant online on that side, and I hate to use sides. I find it funny it's occurring so often on a site like Revscene nowadays.

Do you have any counter arguments to anything I've typed considering you disagree with all of it? I'd love a good debate. I typed a couple walls of text so I'm sure there's something you can speak about. Poke holes in my arguments, I'm all for it. I'm here to learn and my only quest is for the truth.

You think I'm trolling because you're ideologically possessed. It's impossible for you to believe that I'm being sincere because it's an us against them issue for you and I'm on the other side.

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by 68style

The birddog has spoken guys... all 14 posts of him... he knows everything, has studied all the scholars and has taken every single nuance of both the political and economic system into account before delivering his final verdict to us. It's just simple economics guys!

Convert or be labeled unworthy of responding to.

Seriously though, I'm sure somewhere in your post there are many rational thoughts buried in it... and it's not like believing that government can be effective makes you liberal or makes you fiscally irresponsible... but the arrogance of your perceived reality being the only possible perception of the world is clouding any argument that could possibly come of what you're saying. As soon as you say something like "ICBC should be closed down" people's brains just turn off and they dismiss your comment because it's nothing but pitchforks. Where's the analysis? Where's the solution? You apparently know better? I don't think so......... and if you've never worked in the government or been a part of the finance structure of the government, your "opinion" that its bloated in all shapes and forms is based on memes from Facebook and nothing more.

You don't need to work in a particular field to have an educated opinion on it.

I explained my reasoning behind the ICBC opinion and I'm frankly surprised that most people would disagree with me considering how much we pay for insurance.

[Manic!]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

You don't need to work in a particular field to have an educated opinion on it.

I explained my reasoning behind the ICBC opinion and I'm frankly surprised that most people would disagree with me considering how much we pay for insurance.

Compared to?

[birddog3k]

Originally Posted by Manic!

Compared to?

https://globalnews.ca/news/4339457/b...ians-industry/

Regardless of the costs, it's more of a freedom issure for me. The freedom to chose who we do business with will lead to better service for all of us in the long run because the ones who can't compete will lose.

Also, if ICBC decides to raise insurance on a class of vehicles we have to just accept it.

I ride a motorcycle and the way insurance is calculated makes no sense. It's cheaper for me to insure a 600cc sport bike than a 1200cc cruiser despite the 600cc bike being way faster. They look strictly at engine size, not the type of engine.

I think just opening up the industry to private insurers is good enough to show how badly mismanaged ICBC is.

[Traum]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

I think just opening up the industry to private insurers is good enough to show how badly mismanaged ICBC is.

While I am critical of ICBC's practices, I am not a proponent of private insurance. In fact, having lived with it in Ontario for a couple of years, I absolutely dread it.

Don't get me wrong -- I certainly see some of the benefits that private insurance brings. At the same time, I have seen enough of its problems that I think we'd still be better off with public insurance. That said, ICBC absolutely needs to undergo major reforms in the way it runs its business.

We will see how much AG Eby's changes can improve ICBC, but even if there are benefits, it'll take some time -- at least a year or two once the changes kick in -- to tell how effective they might be.

[DragonChi]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

Most of you are not worth responding to. Anyone want to actually debate ideas and not be a dick because your precious beliefs have been challenged?

If you think the government is more efficient than the private sector then please read some economics. Some good teachers are Friedman and Hayek.

Basically, all government expenditures have to be paid by tax payer dollars. If you increase expenditure, it has to come from tax payers. Thus, to limit taxes, we have to limit spending and spend wisely! It sounds like common sense because economics is common sense at its core.

Anyway, governments pioneering knowledge is very true. I believe this is a legitimate use of our tax dollars because this is not something the private sector could do due to massive start-up costs. Space travel, the internet, and GPS are good examples. Glad we agree on something.

I also agree with the point having their pros and cons, this is something any reasonable person would agree with. However it begs the question: what roles should the government play and what should be left to the private sector?

In my humble opinion, and as I've stated previously the government of Canada is not only inefficient but it's bloated. ICBC should be closed down. There are too many regulations in every industry. For example, the government should not have any say for the length of cell phone contracts.

I'm interested to read how these authors interpret how government is inefficient on providing services based on spending compared to non government companies. I've wiki'd them, but didn't see any information relating to the discussion. Please cite specific works or passages.

I will say that I like this Friedman guy already. "He once stated that his role in eliminating conscription in the United States was his proudest accomplishment. In his 1962 book Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman advocated policies such as a volunteer military, freely floating exchange rates, abolition of medical licenses, a negative income tax and school vouchers[15] and opposed the war on drugs." Pretty sure, those are all government policies...

[68style]

Originally Posted by birddog3k

You don't need to work in a particular field to have an educated opinion on it.

I explained my reasoning behind the ICBC opinion and I'm frankly surprised that most people would disagree with me considering how much we pay for insurance.

Bullshit, unless you have experience within an organization or directly with it, you're just an outsider looking in guessing and making assumptions. Educated opinion my ass. Educated by what biased and directed content I wonder?

I am a prime candidate for private insurance, no claims in 20+ years I'd save thousands, but I'm wary of it from my experience as well. It's great for people who have no claims history and no ticket history... but get a ticket (even just ONE ticket!) or have an affinity for auto-cross or a particularly rare and valuable type of vehicle and you're at the mercy of them deciding they just don't want to sell you a policy anymore. Do some research on it in the USA how companies spy on their customers to see if they are doing risky stuff like auto-cross (Wooo! So risky!) or modifying their vehicles in any way and then blacklisting them. Nevermind the absolutely absurd costs for new drivers that make ICBC's 0% discount look like a deal in comparison.

It's definitely a double-edged sword, and while I personally would profit from private insurance, I'm conscious of my fellow humans and my niece and nephew who will drive in the future and what they would have to pay in order for me to save a bit.

[westopher]

The cheapest insurance I could get at 16, from private insurance in Alberta, 16 years ago was $5500 a year. Most quotes were around 10k.
I can afford the extra $400 a year icbc is costing me now a lot easier than a 16 year old can afford the extra $2500. So I’ll deal with it.

[welfare]

Why not a compromise?
Introduce private option to offer competition.