Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Kenney Pulls Gay Rights from Citizenship Guide


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 285
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Socially Conservative. In no way does that make all Conservatives authoritarian. There are plenty of social conservatives today are democratic. Some aren't. See Stephen Harper.

Yes because Steven Harper wants to get booted out of the PM chair...

No, I didn't call the head of multinational corporations idiot teabaggers. I called you an idiot teabagger because you imply that government intervention in some markets implies Stalinism which is ludicrously stupid.

Tell me what economies prosper more, those with more or less gov't intervention. NAFTA is proof of how taking out gov't intervention makes society wealthier.

Alberta v Quebec doesn't matter anyways. Quebec is where it is and that I can't deny, but the only reason why Alberta is where it is, is due to the oil boom. You'll also notice that when the boom is truly over how stupidly the government acted by not intervening at all. The Alberta provincial government has been too busy signing royalty cheques to buy votes than actually investing in new infrastructure to help diversify it's economy. The overall bubble in Alberta is the mother of all bubbles. Housing is over valued by as much as 50%.

Quebec, the province with deepwater ports, minerals, large population for manufacturing, and hydroelectricity. That province which is one of the most indebted jurisdictions in the western hemisphere. Alberta is a one trick pony with no deep water ports and no debt and that oil show ain't ending for some time. THe only bubble I'm worried about is the Quebec socialist paradise bubble that the other provinces pay for, yet the Quebec debt goes up, when that bubble pops, this country is in trouble.

My friend was offered a drive through timmies part time job at 20 bucks an hour. It can't last forever and it's all because the Alberta provincial economy refused to slow down a dangerously overheated market.

It will last longer than Quebec's socialist paradise

During the civil war they implemented a rigidly socialist economy. The new Soviet State came out completely broken and unable to do anything. Lenin and Bukharin implemented the New Economic Policy which allowed for privitization of grain farming and modest moves towards open markets to foster development. Stalin destroyed the NEP after he finally rid Russia of all of Stalin's enemies such as Zinoviev, Kamenev and Bukharin. But then again, you knew that and made such stupid comments because clearly you were joking.

Then I read Lenin's book about capitalism, and I just don't buy it...

Spoken like a person who doesn't have a damned clue what he's talking about. Keep it up!

You can praise Reagan all you want but true historical records show he's nothing but a failure. First of all he was barely there and didn't even really run the White House. Trudeau once got so angry because he couldn't keep up with the talks that Trudeau stormed out of the meeting room. I attended a lecture by Colin Powell where he gave an anecdote that during a military briefing in the oval office, Reagan just kept staring out the window at squirrels. By the end of it when Powell asked if he had any questions, Reagan said "Colin, do you see that squirrel out there?"

Show me how he's a failure.

According to a 1996 study[35] from the libertarian think tank Cato Institute:

On 8 of the 10 key economic variables examined, the American economy performed better during the Reagan years than during the pre- and post-Reagan years.

Real median family income grew by $4,000 during the Reagan period after experiencing no growth in the pre-Reagan years; it experienced a loss of almost $1,500 in the post-Reagan years.

Interest rates, inflation, and unemployment fell faster under Reagan than they did immediately before or after his presidency.

The only economic variable that was worse in the Reagan period than in both the pre- and post-Reagan years was the savings rate, which fell rapidly in the 1980s.

The productivity rate was higher in the pre-Reagan years but much lower in the post-Reagan years.

Outstanding.

Lets not forget that this man of small government and taxes implemented the largest tax hike in American history

Your confusing in increase of tax receipts with an increase in tax rates.

Despite the fact that you think he "spent the Russians broke." The Russian economy was dead in the 60s. It was going to break down either way. Reagan's increased defence spending only led to the horrible economic conditions of the late 80s early 90s in the west, not to any breakup of the USSR.

Good your catching on that socialism is not the way to grow an economy. However, the USSR tried to play catch up in the arms race and lost, and lost big.

Reagan is nothing more than a legend, and a dangerous one at that. Conservatives everyhwere have created this narrative of what happened during his term, but most of it never did. At least not the way Conservatives remember it. Reagan was one of the first leaders of the new conservative movement that defines what it is today. Too bad he never did anything about it.

Tin foil anyone?

The difference between modern conservatives and liberals is that conservatives tax and spend and lie about being tax cutters and small government. Liberals don't. Reagan, Thatcher, Mulroney, Bush 2 and now Harper, in each of their countries histories have pushed spending and government to levels never seen before. Ironically, who had to reign in what these so called small government conservatives? Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Jean Chretien

Giggle... NAFTA and Reagonomics are the primary reasons why North America is the economic envy of the world. The numbers don't lie, Clinton, Blair, and Chretien got to ride on easy street on the fruits of Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney's labours. As for Chretien cleaning up Mulroney's mess, Mulroney had to go into deficit to pay the interest off on the massive debt left by Trudeau. Trudeau's socialist bubble went pop in the early nineties and we unfortunately had to create a new tax to get rid of it. Not only that, the world bank has had to inform the Liberal gov't of the 1990's to slash spending and service the debt.

Small c conservatism only lives in the minds of the most uneducated blowhards. Or the richest guys who simply don't want to pay taxes. At least I understand the rich guys reasoning. If you want small government, low taxes which is conservatives definition of freedom, try Somalia. I hear it's beautiful this time of year. New conservatism is just as much a dead ideology as communism.

Oh I get it your entitled to my money. If you like high taxes, and big government which is your definition of paradise, try Venezuela, I hear it's beautiful this time of year. Just remember to keep quiet when ol' Chavez is in town, he tends to not like dissenters. I'll take Alberta and it's small gov't over Quebec and it's big gov't any day of the week. Given how things are working out in the US, in 2012, I wouldn't be surprised if we're back to conservatism.

I take my economic advise from Kevin O'Leary, I'll listen to him over some broke poli-sci prof who thinks that people who make money should be punished with high taxes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize Blueblood that Quebec has one of the fastest growing economies in Canada most of the time recently, right? They are right up there with BC. Oil is worth far more though, than any of the things you listed.

Oh, and prove to me that Alberta has a small government. Alberta probably has one of the largest governments in the world. They spend like drunken sailors.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites
Still waiting for an answer. When did you conciously choose to be attracted to the opposite sex. It's a simple question and a simple answer will do.

My thoughts? You know the answer is you never conciously chose to be attracted to opposite sex, it came unbidden and naturally to you.

I believe what you mean to say is that you're waiting for the answer you approve of; that's what loaded questions are meant to bring. Revisionism also helps you convince yourself you're right, too.

But, I'll try and put it this way: attraction of varying degrees to both genders comes unbidden to everybody at different points, with differing frequency. The choice lies in whether one acknowledges and/or acts on those impulses, or merely subverts them in their preferred method and lives the proper "gay" or "straight" way.

I never said anything about overbearing mothers. And if you think I fall into the same category with Mr.Canada on this matter, you're clearly not reading what I write.

[c/e]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realize Blueblood that Quebec has one of the fastest growing economies in Canada most of the time recently, right? They are right up there with BC. Oil is worth far more though, than any of the things you listed.

Oh, and prove to me that Alberta has a small government. Alberta probably has one of the largest governments in the world. They spend like drunken sailors.

Ontario doesn't have oil, yet they were the economic powerhouse of Canada for the 19th and 20th centuries. Oil has nothing to do with it.

You do also know that gov't spending also plays with GDP numbers. In essence, Quebec is spending our money to prop up their economy. If Alberta and Ontario got as much free money as quebec to throw around, they'd have even faster growth.

Ralph Klien 1990's, can you say bye bye debt? We both know that Quebec can't! As for Ed Stelmach spending like a drunken sailor, he will pay for it dearly come election time/review.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario doesn't have oil, yet they were the economic powerhouse of Canada for the 19th and 20th centuries. Oil has nothing to do with it.

You're right, Oil has nothing to do with Ontario's success. It has everything to do with Alberta's. Oh, and just so you know, when times are good Ontario still grows faster than Alberta.

You do also know that gov't spending also plays with GDP numbers. In essence, Quebec is spending our money to prop up their economy. If Alberta and Ontario got as much free money as quebec to throw around, they'd have even faster growth.

It isn't free money, and it's still a very small part of their economy. The Quebec economy is worth over $300B.

Ralph Klien 1990's, can you say bye bye debt? We both know that Quebec can't! As for Ed Stelmach spending like a drunken sailor, he will pay for it dearly come election time/review.

That doesn't tell me anything about the size of government. Alberta was running surpluses larger than Ottawa was. If they didn't get out of debt, that would have been the amazing thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bi-sexuals? Don't get me started.

Of course. People Men who call themselves bisexual are the new aberration of nature that both gays and straights can fear and rail against. (Bisexual women are, of course, perfectly acceptable.) :rolleyes:

[+]

Edited by g_bambino
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Oil has nothing to do with Ontario's success. It has everything to do with Alberta's. Oh, and just so you know, when times are good Ontario still grows faster than Alberta.

Nope, that would be good management of resources. Ontario was good at managing resources until they pissed that little luxury away by trying to milk the automotive industry. Venezuela floats on oil, and they're piss poor.

My link

In 2004 when times were really good for Canada, SK, AB, and BC outperformed Ontario by a full percentage point.

And Oil is almost negligible for BC on top of it.

It isn't free money, and it's still a very small part of their economy. The Quebec economy is worth over $300B.

300B compared to...

That doesn't tell me anything about the size of government. Alberta was running surpluses larger than Ottawa was. If they didn't get out of debt, that would have been the amazing thing.

And that doesn't tell me about the size of the Alberta government in relation to others. Alberta has rock bottom taxes, and no debt, must be a large government...

If Alberta spends like drunken sailors, Quebec and Ontario must be Keith Richards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If Alberta spends like drunken sailors, Quebec and Ontario must be Keith Richards.

Nobodies deficit this year matches Alberta's per capita.

Anyway, about that GDP growth:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ50-eng.htm

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ15-eng.htm

Ontario will be just fine as soon as the US economy recovers to any extent. It is still the largest part of Canada's economy. Also interesting the Newfoundland and Labrador is doing better that Saskatchewan economic growth wise.

Anyway, this is about gay people.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobodies deficit this year matches Alberta's per capita.

Anyway, about that GDP growth:

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ50-eng.htm

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/econ15-eng.htm

Ontario will be just fine as soon as the US economy recovers to any extent. It is still the largest part of Canada's economy. Also interesting the Newfoundland and Labrador is doing better that Saskatchewan economic growth wise.

Anyway, this is about gay people.

Yet the debt of Ontario is what again? You do know that gov't spending is included in GDP?

Link to post
Share on other sites

And which two large provinces have a massive amount of gov't debt and which one does not?

And? The total debt doesn't count as part of the GDP every year. A deficit does though, and Alberta is competing with the best of them in that department this year.

Like I said, this is about gay people.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And? The total debt doesn't count as part of the GDP every year. A deficit does though, and Alberta is competing with the best of them in that department this year.

Like I said, this is about gay people.

But gov't spending is included in the GDP, and debt is starting to pile up.

We have two provinces borrowing a pile of money and taxing the dickens out of their populaces, yet their growth during the "good times" was a full percent behind the 3 western provinces.

And the high taxes and equalization payments? Quebec's economy is pretty much a house of cards.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But gov't spending is included in the GDP, and debt is starting to pile up.

Only in one of the links. The other GDP number is not expenditure based, and gives the picture without government (or any spending) and instead is by production.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

We have two provinces borrowing a pile of money and taxing the dickens out of their populaces, yet their growth during the "good times" was a full percent behind the 3 western provinces.

Ontario taxes aren't really all that high. For the most part, they're lower than Alberta's....in fact, it seems Ontario has some of the lowest taxes in Canada. They do have more sales tax than Alberta, but their income tax rates are quite good.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Quebec on the other hand, has high taxes, but people don't seem to complain there that much...as in most more socialized regions.

http://www.revenu.gouv.qc.ca/en/citoyen/impots/rens_comp/taux.aspx

And the high taxes and equalization payments? Quebec's economy is pretty much a house of cards.

No, it's not.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes because Steven Harper wants to get booted out of the PM chair...

Tell me what economies prosper more, those with more or less gov't intervention. NAFTA is proof of how taking out gov't intervention makes society wealthier.

Depends on your definition of propser. I'd argue there's a balance between the creation of wealth and standard of living. There's an interesting book called the European Dream which postulates an idea to only count "positive GDP." Should prisons, police officers, dumping and other economic activities count towards the GPD? I'd argue that no, they shouldn't be. Even using today's standard of calculating wealth, the EU has a larger GDP than the US. Taking things that could be taken away from the GDP that affects standard of living and the EU's advantage in terms of GDP becomes staggering.

Quebec, the province with deepwater ports, minerals, large population for manufacturing, and hydroelectricity. That province which is one of the most indebted jurisdictions in the western hemisphere. Alberta is a one trick pony with no deep water ports and no debt and that oil show ain't ending for some time. THe only bubble I'm worried about is the Quebec socialist paradise bubble that the other provinces pay for, yet the Quebec debt goes up, when that bubble pops, this country is in trouble.

It will last longer than Quebec's socialist paradise

Only an uneducated conservative would call Quebec a socialist paradise. More and more, you demonstrate that like most other conervatives, you've no idea what the term actually means and just use it as a tool to beat people whom you don't like.

Then I read Lenin's book about capitalism, and I just don't buy it...

There's a difference between someone's declared ideology whether written or oral and their actual actions. As I've mentioned, Reagan, Thatcher, Bush, Bush 2, Mulroney and Harper are all proof of that.

Show me how he's a failure.

He's a failure simply due to the fact that he never really accomplished anything other than to lead America's economy to a huge recession in the late 80s and 90s. He ramped up defence spending and raised taxes (spin it the way you want, he raised taxes. It's like Lisa's "temporary refund adjustment"). Things may have gotten better during his time as president but is it really a coincidence that things got worse after he left? He took the country out of stagflation by getting people to build weapons building no sustainable structure for future growth and as soon as the cold war really ended (and even before then due to the state of spending) sent the US into an immediate recession.

He get's all these accolades of things he never really did. He brought down the Soviet Union, he cut taxes and made government smaller. All things he never did. The Soviet Union part especially is dangerous and the attitude it fostered led to the invasion of Iraq. Michael Myers makes a poignant argument in his book "The Year that Changed the World: The Demise and Fall of the Berlin Wall" "Bring Down this Wall" has led to many policy makers believe that authoritarian regimes are all hollow at the core and all they need is a little nudge to be brought down. People will dance in the street and waive flags because deep down, the policy wonks who grew up eating up Reagan myths believe everyone is an American. Reagan has ceased to become reality and in a short 20 years has become mythical; a symbol of what people want government to be and not what it was in reality.

Good your catching on that socialism is not the way to grow an economy. However, the USSR tried to play catch up in the arms race and lost, and lost big.

I never said socialism is a good way to develop an economy. It's a terrible way. My point is merely that in developed nation there has to be a balanced approach to the way we deal with things to raise living standards. It involves things like open markets and free trade and at the same time poverty and education.

Also, if we want to be historically accurate, the fact that the USSR lost the arms race is another myth. To this day, Russia has more nuclear weapons stockpiled, more ICBMs and more tanks. The only way NATO could've stopped a Soviet invasion of western Europe was to use nuclear weapons.

Tin foil anyone?

Giggle... NAFTA and Reagonomics are the primary reasons why North America is the economic envy of the world. The numbers don't lie, Clinton, Blair, and Chretien got to ride on easy street on the fruits of Thatcher, Reagan, and Mulroney's labours. As for Chretien cleaning up Mulroney's mess, Mulroney had to go into deficit to pay the interest off on the massive debt left by Trudeau. Trudeau's socialist bubble went pop in the early nineties and we unfortunately had to create a new tax to get rid of it. Not only that, the world bank has had to inform the Liberal gov't of the 1990's to slash spending and service the debt.

Yeah, cleaning up those brutal recessions, deficits left by reaganomics in the US sure was "riding easy street." Yikes. What a dumb statement. Furthermore, you essentially just said that mulroney had to fight debt, by incurring more debt. I think it was probably more to do with the fact that mulroney was a moron had more than anything.

Oh I get it your entitled to my money. If you like high taxes, and big government which is your definition of paradise, try Venezuela, I hear it's beautiful this time of year. Just remember to keep quiet when ol' Chavez is in town, he tends to not like dissenters. I'll take Alberta and it's small gov't over Quebec and it's big gov't any day of the week. Given how things are working out in the US, in 2012, I wouldn't be surprised if we're back to conservatism.

I take my economic advise from Kevin O'Leary, I'll listen to him over some broke poli-sci prof who thinks that people who make money should be punished with high taxes.

I'm not entitled to your money, but if you want the services that is provided by the government, then you're entitled to pay for them. If you don't like it, move to Somalia.

Furthermore, if you think that "broke poli-sci" profs make anything under $150,000 a year not including book royalties, you need to go back to school.

Edited by nicky10013
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, if we want to be historically accurate, the fact that the USSR lost the arms race is another myth. To this day, Russia has more nuclear weapons stockpiled, more ICBMs and more tanks. The only way NATO could've stopped a Soviet invasion of western Europe was to use nuclear weapons.

Although, I doubt many of them work today. The Russian Federation has about the same number of working naval vessels as Canada....and most of the ones they have barely work. People say the Canadian forces need new equipment. I think we've got it pretty good compared to them.... :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario taxes aren't really all that high. For the most part, they're lower than Alberta's....in fact, it seems Ontario has some of the lowest taxes in Canada. They do have more sales tax than Alberta, but their income tax rates are quite good.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/fq/txrts-eng.html

Except where it comes to businesses where it counts the most.

My link

As for sales tax, anything is greater than zero. With Albertans paying half the sales taxes as Ontarians, that makes up for the gap at the lower income tax brackets. Aren't flat taxes fun?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily, your argument dies right at the question you launch it with. A narrow minded concept of sexuality limits you to believing only that once a sexual label is settled on, all capability to ever feel anything opposed to what that label requires for application ceases. A question for you would be: why after you've decided you're gay can you never, ever, ever have a reflexive sexual urge for a woman; or vice versa? Is the world really so black and white for you?

No, it's not. I know there are varying degrees of sexuality. I completely agree with it. I however know for a fact that it isn't a choice unless you specifically choose to hide what you feel inside for fear of being rejected from society. All gay people say it isn't a choice who you're attracted to and yes, people can have reflex urges for both sexes. They're called bi-sexuals. The parts of the brain that control sexual impulses are distinct in form between male and female. Psychologists studied the brains of 100 people, 50 of whom were openly gay. Without fail, the men who were gay had their brains more look like females and lesbians brains looked closer to male brains. There can be varying degrees of formation which I assume would acocunt for varying degrees of bi-sexuality.

Never have I once heard a gay person say it's a choice of lifestyle rather than a biological impulse that they're born with. How is it that you, apparently a straight man can tell a gay person what's going through his head by condescendingly say that he's only waiting "for the answer he wants to hear." From my experience with my gay friends, he already knows what the answer is and you can't possibly because you aren't gay. Frankly, people who claim that homosexuality is a choice are just looking for reasons to ostracise people. It's far easier to not like someone for the choices they make rather than not liking them because they're born that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

He's a failure simply due to the fact that he never really accomplished anything other than to lead America's economy to a huge recession in the late 80s and 90s. He ramped up defence spending and raised taxes (spin it the way you want, he raised taxes. It's like Lisa's "temporary refund adjustment"). Things may have gotten better during his time as president but is it really a coincidence that things got worse after he left? He took the country out of stagflation by getting people to build weapons building no sustainable structure for future growth and as soon as the cold war really ended (and even before then due to the state of spending) sent the US into an immediate recession.

He get's all these accolades of things he never really did. He brought down the Soviet Union, he cut taxes and made government smaller. All things he never did. The Soviet Union part especially is dangerous and the attitude it fostered led to the invasion of Iraq. Michael Myers makes a poignant argument in his book "The Year that Changed the World: The Demise and Fall of the Berlin Wall" "Bring Down this Wall" has led to many policy makers believe that authoritarian regimes are all hollow at the core and all they need is a little nudge to be brought down. People will dance in the street and waive flags because deep down, the policy wonks who grew up eating up Reagan myths believe everyone is an American. Reagan has ceased to become reality and in a short 20 years has become mythical; a symbol of what people want government to be and not what it was in reality.

The mythologizing of Reagan is a fascinating phenomenon, giving credence to the idea that many people crave a fatherly authority figure to worship. He's virtually a total invention.

That's why (as we've seen in this thread) any criticism, like yours, that exposes him as less than noble and wise, gets people visibly angry. They're very, very sensitive about Reagan, whose achievements have been breathlessly bloated beyond all recognition.

So, he saved America...from their own awful liberal course, or something; he defeated the Soviet Union; and the Iranian mullahs, trembling in fear at the Great Man's election, released the hostages to avoid his towering, righteous anger.

It's been his only truly good Hollywood performance, and it's been composed by the very people who claim to despise Hollywood.

Edited by bloodyminded
Link to post
Share on other sites

Although, I doubt many of them work today. The Russian Federation has about the same number of working naval vessels as Canada....and most of the ones they have barely work. People say the Canadian forces need new equipment. I think we've got it pretty good compared to them.... :lol:

Yeah, the navy is a joke but the Army and Air Force have formidable hardware. The newest Russian fighters being produced are on par with western models. Russia is currently designing a new ICBM which would be able to get through the proposed missile shield, but the missile shield doesn't work anyway. Russia's tanks aren't as modern as the US's but if we've learned anything from WWII, in terms of land battles it's numbers, not quality. The T-34 was inferior to pretty much every model of German tank but the T-34 prevailed due to numbers, and the Russians have it with T-72s and T-90s. The Russians also have a full 4,000 more nuclear warheads.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Aren't flat taxes fun?

Actually, no. They make it so that people at lower brackets can't afford as much as they would have been able to if some of the tax had been shifted higher, to the people who could better afford it.

As for business tax, Ontario will be lowering it, but, in reality, they are still, always were, and probably always will be our business heartland.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...