Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

turningrite

Suspended
  • Content Count

    1,513
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    20

Posts posted by turningrite

  1. 4 hours ago, betsy said:

    The answer, I don't know if there'll be major changes.  But I do know that he promised dental plan for the low-income seniors.  No....it's not to have white teeth.

    My questions:  why does a seniors' drug plan have to be UNIVERSAL?  Why should taxpayers pay for those who can afford to pay for them?   Why shouldn't we look after those who can't, instead?    

    To pay for everyone isn't sustainable - especially now that Ontario is deeply buried in debts!  Lol, we can't even say for sure if we'll have OHIP at all in the near future - never mind universal this-and-that.

    Of course, the major point of comparison is the situation in the U.S., where at least many seniors have access to drug benefits provided through their employer plans. This is much rarer in Ontario, where employers generally don't offer such benefits, except perhaps in some unionized environments, due to the existence of the universal seniors drug plan. Will Dougie at least put Ontario seniors on an equal footing by requiring employers to extend such benefits to their retired employees? I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

    Wynne reportedly contemplated gutting the seniors drug plan and replacing it with an income tested formula. Reportedly, her plan would have categorized single seniors with incomes higher than about 19K and couples with incomes higher than about 32K as privileged. Presumably she backed away due to the potential political backlash it might generate. If Ford tries to do this, he will no doubt do it early in his mandate as the timing will afford him some ability to ameliorate the backlash among a group of voters who tend to favor his party.

    Why are universal seniors drug benefits important? We also have a near-universal basic old age pension as well, although the NDP's Mr. Singh would reportedly like to gut that. As some commentators have noted, those who pay often very high taxes throughout their working lives only to be told that when they get old their benefits must be scaled back in order to provide more benefits to the subsidy class will question why they should have to pay taxes at all. That's more or less the way I feel these days. I paid taxes for decades only to find out that now that I'm pensioned off the government apparently thinks that despite my reduced circumstances (earning about two-thirds of the amount I did during my working years) I should cover out of my own pocket benefits I was told for years that my taxes were intended to cover. Personally, I now think the whole thing is a scam. Hey, but if Ford makes my old employer pick up the tab I can live with that.

  2. 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    And I am voting for representatives which are going to break the three party gulag, they're called the Pequistes, and they are just biding their time until the Ottawa gravy starts to run low.

    I don't live in Quebec so that's not an option for me. It's more likely I'll back Bernier's party.

  3. I read an article several days ago (link below) indicating that the Ford government possibly intends to end the long-existing universal drug benefit program for seniors. The implications of this could be quite significant, particularly given that seniors generally constitute a reliable conservative voting bloc. Will Ford throw that away, effectively giving Trudeau an issue the Libs might be able to use to sweep Ontario's federal seats? The repercussions could be much more widespread and serious, however, with many senior and near-senior voters potentially becoming aware of the extent to which governments are willing to pull benefits from long-time taxpayers in order to furnish them to more fashionable (i.e. politically correct) voting blocs. If the Ford government goes ahead with this, I think it could become a huge mess.

    https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2019/01/10/fate-of-ontario-drug-benefit-could-define-federal-election.html

  4. 1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

    Oh I don't think the world outside of Ontario is under any delusions that Quebec is actually in Confederation anymore, other than excepting some bribes to not make it official at the UN.

    Canada is a de facto failed state, but also de jure,  by the stated terms of Confederation, which in every case, is the opposite end state of what Confederation was supposed to deliver.

    Is there any point to be made by responding to this? Canada is imperfect but hardly irreparably broken. I worry for its future under its current leaders, whom I consider ineffective and self-serving. But we still have a free vote and the ability to change governments. If you're not happy, vote for representatives who seek to challenge the tri-party mainstream cartel that holds sway in Ottawa. That's my plan.

  5. 10 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    And the reason is all those countries have a national interest, whereas Canada doesn't, Canada being the failed state of the litter, simply propped up by corporate welfare from the Hegemon

    I suspect that nobody takes you seriously when you post comments like this. All countries have national interests. And, again, while Canada is an imperfect elite directed democracy it's not a failed state.

  6. I was cited for excessive quoting, presumably for quoting verbatim a couple of verbose posts that I considered unproductive in relation to constructive discussion of the topic at hand. How can this possibly amount to a violation of rules on any site that ostensibly promotes free speech? I'm completely puzzled by the warning, which seems to me to contradict the spirit of free speech, at the very least.

  7. 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    IIRC, your point was that Nazi Germany was a military dictatorship and that was why it is considered to be a totalitarian state. 

     

    That wasn't my point at all. I was talking about Canada and why it is not a totalitarian state even though it's not an exemplary democracy. You, on the other hand, seem to obsessed by Hitler and Nazis.

  8. 1 hour ago, betsy said:

    Either he doesn't take his job seriously.....or, dementia is setting in!

     

    Do the Libs even care about these inconvenient little incidents? Trudeau was in N.B. yesterday touting Canada's success in resettling Syrian refugees even though the federal Auditor General has criticized the government for not tracking the economic circumstances of and outcomes for these refugees. While most will likely integrate, eventually, and likely at great cost to Canadian taxpayers, JT's government seems to view them more as stage props to serve its own propaganda and electoral interests. Who doesn't like a good fairy tale, right?

  9. 19 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Its entirely consistent with logic, the Nazi Germans of Nazi Germany did not view themselves as being the enemy, the enemy was the Jewish Bolshevik Conspiracy, and Stutzstaffel is literally the German word for Homeland Security, for all intents and purposes, State Protective Echelon.

    You're proving my point.

  10. 15 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Obviously if you are quoting Noam Chomsky as an appeal to authority fallacy, a classically liberal conservative like me simply interprets that as meaning you subscribe to the far left, bordering on communism, thus having read Chomsky and sussed him out as a commie sympathizer, I don't feel any need to revisit it, tho I would kill and die to defend your right to publish about it.

    Argumentum ad hominem...zzzzzzz

  11. 18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    I am being entirely sensible and reasonable...

     

    Really? Like by talking about Aryan conspiracies and comparing the SS to Homeland Security? Canada's elite controlled limited democracy is neither totalitarian nor characteristic of a failed state. It isn't an exemplary democracy, of course, but instead is a highly manipulated one that mainly functions to serve the interests of a relatively narrow set of interests. Perhaps you might try reading the book 'Manufacturing Consent' by Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky to understand what I'm talking about.

  12. 13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    It's not uncommon in totalitarian Canada neither, if you rock the boat and stir up trouble for the failed Confederation, you will be accused of thought crime, the very essence of totalitarianism.

    Attempts to suppress free speech in Canada are certainly problematic but at this point the situation clearly doesn't equate to proof of a failed totalitarian state. In my opinion, this movement is being led by the elites who control the political agenda, who apparently intend to bolster their interests by minimizing irritants like the growing opposition to large-scale immigration. Your observation, then, appears to support my characterization of Canada's system of government as being an elite controlled limited democracy. Even though our elitist-in-chief, Trudeau, does his best to minimize the impact of what he calls "fringe" ideas, we still have a free vote and candidates with other opinions can run for office largely without official intimidation. They'll be thoroughly dismissed by the mainstream political cartel and its media allies, of course, but, so far, we can still for the most part express and vote for those expressing dissenting views.

  13. 8 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

    Hitler had an 89% approval rating, post-Reichstag, the Germans loved him like Americans loved Bush right after 9/11. Pretending like Hitler wasn't popular in Germany, is simply ahistorical nonsense.

    Who said he wasn't popular? Hitler was popular up to the point where his military strategy started to go horribly wrong. That's not at all uncommon for totalitarian regimes. This week, I watched the episode on Mussolini in the PBS series 'The Dictator's Playbook'. The series highlights the similarities between many of the most prominent modern totalitarian regimes, including their reliance on police and military oppression to quash their enemies. Mussolini, like Hitler, came to power at a time of enormous economic and social crisis, which he exploited to achieve power, after which he was able to successfully suppress democratic institutions, as did Hitler. After attaining power, he used various methods, including propaganda, nationalism and military adventurism to sustain his popularity, until, well, things started to go downhill very quickly.

  14. Just now, Dougie93 said:

    The Shutzstaffel were not the military tho, the Shutzstaffel were civilians, like the CIA or the KGB, they had a military wing, the Waffen-SS, but the SS writ large was a security service not a military, most of them were not armed combatants at all.

     

    The role of the SS included ensuring compliance with the regime's objectives by instilling fear among all the state's legitimate instruments of power, including the military and the police. Hitler and his henchmen didn't trust anybody. In fact, in virtually all totalitarian states the most relevant risks to a sitting regime come from within the military. Of course, Hitler feared a coup emerging from the military, just as do almost all totalitarian regimes. The very instruments of brute power upon which these regimes rely are also very often their undoing and logically so.

  15. 7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Disagree, the Nazis were not propped up by the military....

    You're kidding, right? You don't think Nazi Germany was a police state sustained by the sheer brute force of state (i.e. police, military and paramilitary) power? He created one of the world's most feared paramilitary forces, the SS, and played it off against the military generals in order to ensure their compliance with and loyalty to his regime. Oh well, if you think Hitler was really a puppy dog beloved by his people for all his wonderful qualities, keep on dreaming. The SS was not in its own right sufficiently large or powerful to control Western Europe's most populous country.

  16. 8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    Military interference in internal affairs is not totalitarian by default.  Even exemplary democracies can succumb to totalitarianism, Hitler was elected in the Wiemar Republic, the most liberal country in the world at the time.

    So your assessments are fallacies which do not make logical sense.

    I think you're misinterpreting the point. Generally speaking, totalitarian regimes can only be sustained by military and/or paramilitary (i.e. police state) force. Hitler and Mussolini both attained power by peaceful means but neither was sustained in power in this fashion. People in countries like Germany and Italy mistakenly believed that politicians with extremist views could be controlled and moderated by democratic institutions. Canada is one of the world's most enduring elite controlled limited democracies. I believe that this assessment in entirely logical and justifiable. Please examine and critique your own (in my opinion) rather grandiose beliefs.

  17. 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    It's not a totalitarian state, because Canada is not the state, Elizabeth Windsor is the state, and HM defends the right to not be totalitarian.

    Canadian Confederation however, is a failed state, it's a fake country, and in order to hold one of those together, that's where totalitarianism comes into play.

    If you speak the truth about things, for example the utterly failed and broken immigration regime, you will be attacked for that, accused of thought crime, a "hate crime", and there is force backing it up, both by civil and criminal liability.  That's totalitarian.

    Huh? Did you read my post? I said Canada isn't a totalitarian state because it has no deep history of military interference in its internal affairs. But neither is it an exemplary democracy. It's a limited democracy that operates under a elitist control model. I think that's an accurate and fair assessment.

  18. 30 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

    That's not the definition of totalitarian, Canadians are indoctrinated to be totalitarian about Confederation, to try to bind the broken thing together.

    Military dictatorship is not the definition of totalitarian, and in fact  most military dictatorships are simply tyrannies.

    Tyranny is think what you want, just don't mess with us overtly,  as in don't try to legislate from the streets, because you will be shot if you do.

    Totalitarian is thought crime, you are messing with us just by thinking and saying things which upset the established order.

    Huh? Please name some totalitarian states that have no history of military involvement in their internal affairs. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any.

  19. On 1/21/2019 at 4:31 PM, Zeitgeist said:

    Canada is probably the least totalitarian democracy.  Canada has a fairly loose federation with regular elections and constitutional protections against abuses. 

    Canada is a good example of an elitist-controlled limited democracy, where a relatively confined set of interests and small cadre of decision makers direct the agenda and determine which issues are open to public discourse. It's mainly a tripartite mainstream party model that largely operates on an internal consensus basis whereby concerns about controversial issues and policies are generally minimized, suppressed and redirected. A narrowly controlled mainstream media environment serves to protect this system, again restricting public debate, input and commentary. It's actually a very closed system. The main reason it's not totalitarian is that Canada has no deep tradition of military interference in the country's internal affairs (with the response to FLQ crisis serving as a notable exception). But the elites don't need military muscle to assert their interests as they have the situation almost completely under control.

  20. 3 minutes ago, eyeball said:

    There are no winners in any of this.  In any case the fact he spoke his mind was still a refreshing change from the usually overly couched and correct language we're used to.

    The fact that he shouldn't have spoken his mind in such a fashion as to undermine the government's position is now patently obvious. Trudeau says he won't replace McCallum at this point, but the ambassador's credibility has certainly suffered. It seems likely he won't serve in the position for much longer.

  21. 15 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

     

    Adopting the UN declaration creates yet another challenge to Crown sovereignty and dilution of federal/provincial control.   I was referring specifically to the 2014 SCC ruling in Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia, wherein actual "aboriginal" land title was established.

    Well, that's the long term question to be answered....what does "reconciliation" really look like in the end, beyond feel good exercises in guilt cleansing.    There are practical matters to be resolved for both land and resources.   First Nations are wise to insist that negotiations and authority must include the reigning sovereign, if only for additional leverage.   Looking to the UN only makes matters worse.  

    The Supreme Court has followed a fairly standard model on land claims issues, including in areas of the country not previously covered by treaties (i.e. arguably "unceded" lands). Its more interesting and important decisions have been those that have defined the boundaries of indigenous claims and title, including its 2017 decision in the Ktunaxa v. British Columbia decision where the court rejected the concept of a spiritual claim to lands in B.C. on which a new ski resort development was proposed. More importantly, the SCC in 2017 rejected the existence of a broader indigenous veto relating to resource projects in its Chippewas of the Thames First Nation v. Enbridge Pipelines decision. Broadly speaking, the court held that indigenous title and interests have to be balanced against the broader public interest. I've read that in the post-colonial countries once governed by Great Britain, including Canada, the U.S. and Australia, the notion of indigenous title is generally interpreted in the context of common law limitations, whereby the Crown (or Federal government in the U.S.) retains sovereignty while granting limited autonomy to legal title holders. Anybody who has ever owned property in Canada understands that title doesn't confer actual sovereignty.

    The UN Declaration is certainly problematic in that Canada's decision to adopt it likely serves to generate new expectations among First Nations in Canada that the restrictions imposed under Canadian law can somehow be bypassed or overruled. In particular, the "consent" provision relating to development that's included among the UN Declaration's provisions appears to be conflict with existing Canadian constitutional jurisprudence. I believe that neither the U.S. nor Australia has signed the Declaration, both no doubt aware of its potentially problematic implications, as was the Harper government. As usual, though, the virtue-signalling Trudeau government on Canada's behalf blithely adopted the Declaration, presumably without fully considering its implications.

     

     

×
×
  • Create New...