Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, cougar said:

I think you are mixing two different concepts - the right to freedom from oppression with the right to puke carbon in the atmosphere for absolutely no sound reason.

So the restrictions are about more than fighting the pandemic?   That's all I need to know.  So basically the pandemic is an excuse to beat people back into feudal life before industrialization vastly improved living standards.  Fighting the pandemic is an excuse to subjugate the population for other reasons.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I am more Libertarian than most, but let's also try to be pragmatic.    First of all, we DO (or SHOULD) hold politicians to a far higher standard, because we elect them to lead us.  IMHO that mea

International and interprovincial travel has been legal in Canada outside the Maritime bubble, yet people who travel are being publicly shamed and losing their jobs.  I realize there's the idea that p

A person is free to risk his or her life by taking risks like parachuting from a hill into a lake but they have no damn rights risking the lives of other people by their reckless actions like travelli

Posted Images

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Fighting the pandemic is an excuse to subjugate the population for other reasons.  

I didn't say that.  It may or may not be the case.

What I say is that flying or driving to that far away property of yours or your favorite vacation spot is not a basic right.  It is a huge privilege.  It affects the lives and basic rights of many people and wildlife.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cougar said:

I didn't say that.  It may or may not be the case.

What I say is that flying or driving to that far away property of yours or your favorite vacation spot is not a basic right.  It is a huge privilege.  It affects the lives and basic rights of many people and wildlife.

I still don't understand what you're saying.  Do you mean that these restrictions are worthwhile for reasons other than fighting the pandemic?  You think it's worth destroying the hospitality, airline, construction, and other industries for the benefits to wildlife and fighting global warming?   If so, and if there are many people with similar ideas, that's more alarming to me than a virus that will eventually pass.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

a response to original post

(sorry cougar didnt mean to interrupt your discussion, im reading you too, intreresting)

 

Politicians sending out mixed messages doesn't help things at all. On one hand they permit flights, but then they tell the public not to travel and to stay home..

yes i agree with original  poster, if you open up flight, then you cant say don't use it while your the one responsible for having it open.

But to beg the public to stay home and not set the example yourself puts you and your political associations integrity on the hook.  If a political associations members joined that association to become leaders in the community and nation then they must be held to lead by example. They are bound by the policies they and their party set. And though not a written policy , it was made apparent by pleading and begging to the public on tv that not flying was what the parties was endorsing as proper behaviour by members and the public . And many companies do have policies regarding company conduct and behaviour that can be grounds for termination if not upheld.

The average none political person should be able to have flown with no repercussions or fear of job loss.

But a political "Leader" or "association member" if they truly desire to lead the people then it starts with the words the say to the public.

also this situation is not a mere matter of government asking people not to were blue jeans while their members do...lol... this is very serious times and many lives are at stake now, so when governments go on air and plead and beg people not to fly, and then their own membership slaps the party in the face by taking that sort of thing  lightly and sneaking on to a plane, well they should be fired, with the urgency of these times weighing against them(its not just blue jeans were talking about, its lives)

yours B.

 

Edited by brett 1
clairify who i responded too
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

  If so, and if there are many people with similar ideas, that's more alarming to me than a virus that will eventually pass.  

The most alarming thing is a majority of people like you who can't see further than their noses and believe the World is some sort of a lunapark created for their personal enjoyment.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cougar said:

The most alarming thing is a majority of people like you who can't see further than their noses and believe the World is some sort of a lunapark created for their personal enjoyment.

Don't make assumptions regarding my care or concern for nature.  I bet you value the property you enjoy and the opportunity that allowed you to buy it.  My guess is you're older and you had decades to enjoy choices that you don't think future generations deserve.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, brett 1 said:

so when governments go on air and plead and beg people not to fly, and then their own membership slaps the party in the face by taking that sort of thing  lightly and sneaking on to a plane, well they should be fired,

It should be noted they didn't "sneak" on a plane. The leader knew they were going.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2021 at 12:00 AM, Zeitgeist said:

My guess is you're older and you had decades to enjoy choices that you don't think future generations deserve.  

I see young people on 4-wheelers ruining mountain trails, I see them driving snowmobiles, I see them in boats or in huge pickup trucks.  No doubt many of them fly around for the sake of it, any chance they get.  I NEVER DID ANY OF THAT! Nor do I intend doing it.

Now keep in mind the World's population has added over 4 billion people in the past 45 years.  You want to tell me that the extra 4 billion all deserve even more of those environmentally destructive choices and that somehow this is their basic right????

However cruel it might sound to you, I believe they should not have had even the basic right to exist!

Most have no conscience, just numbers, running around causing damage. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cougar said:

I see young people on 4-wheelers ruining mountain trails, I see them driving snowmobiles, I see them in boats or in huge pickup trucks.  No doubt many of them fly around for the sake of it, any chance they get.  I NEVER DID ANY OF THAT! Nor do I intend doing it.

Now keep in mind the World's population has added over 4 billion people in the past 45 years.  You want to tell me that the extra 4 billion all deserve even more of those environmentally destructive choices and that somehow this is their basic right????

However cruel it might sound to you, I believe they should not have had even the basic right to exist!

Most have no conscience, just numbers, running around causing damage. 

 

Hitler was a vegetarian who saw value in protecting animals and the purity of German culture even if it meant the mass murder of entire peoples.  It's a sick outlook.  You value your pristine property and views over the freedoms of others and their right to exist.  Who made you the arbiter of who should live and how people should live?   Your views are dangerous and exactly why we need constitutional protections of freedom of movement, property, and the right to earn a living. There are enough people with views like yours to pose a real threat to human rights. It's an arrogant, elitist, and oppressive attitude.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 There are enough people with views like yours to pose a real threat to human rights.

Hopefully there are enough people with views like mine to make a change.  As to human rights, the more people on the planet the less rights you are going to have.

Be thankful there are smart people who can actually fight for you to make your life better.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, cougar said:

Hopefully there are enough people with views like mine to make a change.  As to human rights, the more people on the planet the less rights you are going to have.

Be thankful there are smart people who can actually fight for you to make your life better.

No, your views are a danger to human rights and freedoms.  80% of Canada is mostly uninhabited pristine nature, but that's not good enough to keep your natural haven perfect. What you don't seem to connect is that the same beliefs/world view that says people shouldn't be able to drive ATV's will eventually prevent people like you from owning property like yours in the name of environmental protection. You can't have it both ways.  Your right to own a sweet spread in the mountains is no less a freedom than that person's right to have a day out on a trail on his four-wheeler.  You won't make that connection because it's all about keeping your trails clear of dirty humanity and its carbon footprint so you can have natural purity.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

 80% of Canada is mostly uninhabited pristine nature,

Go on Google Earth and try to find the 80% of uninhabited pristine nature.

Look at the rain forests - mostly gone - look at the north - mostly developed mining or oil and gas patches.

Then look at the prairies - either cities or farmland.

According to advocated of "human rights" like you, there is enough room to put another 70 million Canadians or more.  

But Nature will tell you what is right.   Too bad I have to suffer too for the idiocy of others.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, cougar said:

Go on Google Earth and try to find the 80% of uninhabited pristine nature.

Look at the rain forests - mostly gone - look at the north - mostly developed mining or oil and gas patches.

Then look at the prairies - either cities or farmland.

According to advocated of "human rights" like you, there is enough room to put another 70 million Canadians or more.  

But Nature will tell you what is right.   Too bad I have to suffer too for the idiocy of others.

90% of Canada's population is on 20% of the land in the south.  There has to be room for people to live, work, and experience your pure Black Forest in this country, and there is.  Our planning policies are protecting sensitive lands like never before and driving up land/home prices in the GTA and cities across Canada.  Shoe-horning everyone into compact cities, densification, which I used to support because it protected more nature and made public transit more viable and cities more vital, has created vertical sprawl that hasn't served us well during the pandemic.

But again, you can't have it both ways.  Not everyone can live in pristine nature as you do because there likely isn't enough of it.   That's why we plan, to find a balance.  The biggest driver of rampant development, certainly in Ontario and BC, is immigration.  We have come to rely on it for economic growth, so if you want reduced economic growth and development, probably start with immigration.  Personally I think the issue is that there are no incentives to settle in the far north, which means our land and cities in the south become ever more stressed.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

a)  90% of Canada's population is on 20% of the land in the south.   

 b)  Personally I think the issue is that there are no incentives to settle in the far north, which means our land and cities in the south become ever more stressed.  

a)  That's where there's a probability/possibility of employment and services.

b)  Other than limited employment in a resource extraction, there's no way to sustain yourself/family in the 'far north'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Aristides said:

Lots of prime real estate in the Antarctic. 

Maybe not that far north, but places like Cochrane that have rail and highway access that are gateways to the north.  Very little resource development has happened in some of these places which are almost completely uninhabited once you leave town.  Personally I think 60% of immigration should have a northern address requirement for a minimum of five years.  Canada would attract enough interest and we'd finally have a northern workforce.   The northern uninhabited swath of Ontario is bigger than counties like Switzerland.  Anyway, that's another topic.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

1. Personally I think 60% of immigration should have a northern address requirement for a minimum of five years.  

2. Canada would attract enough interest and we'd finally have a northern workforce.     

1. That's not where the jobs are.
2. It might make sense to promote de-populating the GTA, though.  There are plenty of people who would live in other centres but maybe not so far flung.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That's not where the jobs are.
2. It might make sense to promote de-populating the GTA, though.  There are plenty of people who would live in other centres but maybe not so far flung.

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

We already have over a hundred thousand residents on the shield up in resource country, and there has been a HUGE effort to get them into jobs (some successful, most...not so).  I think 100% of new immigrants should have an on-reserve address - WTF they want to come here to enjoy the Canadian way of life, why not put them into the most privileged communities in the country and the ONLY genuine Canadians for neighbours.

Edited by cannuck
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Resource companies have complained for years about the lack of workers up north, the main reason companies provide higher location pay to incentivize work.  

The main reason is the higher cost of living in the North.  Who wants to live in camp just to pay bills?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I think 100% of new immigrants should have an on-reserve address - WTF they want to come here to enjoy the Canadian way of life,

This will be no different than the way America brought slaves in the 17th century - only difference, now you want them to pay the travel costs.  WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cougar said:

This will be no different than the way America brought slaves in the 17th century - only difference, now you want them to pay the travel costs.  WTF?

I want them to stay the fuck home where they belong.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, cannuck said:

I want them to stay the fuck home where they belong.

 

This is different from what you previously asked - them to stay on-reserve to help resource industries with labor shortages.

Edited by cougar
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cougar said:

This is different from what you previously asked - them to stay on-reserve to help resource industries with labor shortages.

Yes, being fecetious to some extent, but:   Having SOME immigrants (i.e. ones from compatible cultures and qualified to be productive) would set an embarrassing precedent for SOME reserves (there are some who actually DO work) because they will dig to the bottom of the earth (that's a mining pun) to find the best paying jobs and the most hours of work.   Conversely, putting economic refugees from very incompatible cultures into the heart of "real Canada" would stem the tidal wave of people who genuinely would be better off (as will we) by them staying at home.

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.




  • Similar Content

    • By Zeitgeist
      Is anyone else disgusted by the draconian, unjust deep sixing of the Toronto BBQ owner who defied the lockdown order to open indoor dining for three days?   This story illustrates exactly why people have become distrustful of the police and government.  The $187,000 fine imposed on this business owner is vindictive and doesn't fit the crime.  It does explain why small business owners and people in general are suspicious of restrictions that prevent someone from operating a business and earning a livelihood.  I just don't think government should have the right to impose such restrictions.  The right to earn a living is a basic human right. If you don't want to eat out, then don't.  Ensuring social distancing and reduced capacity is one thing, destroying someone's business to make a point that police and government hold all the cards, right or wrong, isn't okay.   What recourse does this guy have without taking expensive legal action that he probably can't afford?
      https://apple.news/A7SiAcw1sRxCR3d6CmZlinA
       
    • By Zeitgeist
      It's estimated that 20 percent of retailers will go out of business in Canada due to public health restrictions.  Workers and business owners are being forced onto government subsistence handouts for the sake of preventing viral spread. Rather than letting people decide whether they want to risk shopping or patronizing businesses, government is deciding for them and destroying some livelihoods.  Is it fair?
    • By Zeitgeist
      We have seen excesses at play from members and factions within the police authorities, kneeling on the neck of a subdued black man, hitting a 70 year-old white man in the face with a baton, shooting a twenty-something indigenous woman based on the police claim that she became aggressive with a knife.
      These stories of police brutality arrive in the context of a pandemic that has hit poor, crowded communities hardest, many with large racialized populations.  In communities that struggled to begin with, hit hard recently by Covid-19, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that police brutality against such peoples can only ignite a powder keg of pent-up anger and frustration.
      Obviously no one in a protest should destroy private property or hurt innocent people.  Meeting a misuse of power with a misuse of protest is an unreasonable solution to oppression.
      The questions must now be asked.
      What systemic policies continue to exist that enable oppression?
      What must change in policing and public policy to prevent the misuse of power?
      I’ll put forward a few policies that I think should immediately change:
      -end all use of force against peaceful protesters
      -end the criminalization and use of law enforcement against drug use (not including large scale drug dealing), prostitution (both in the provision and use of such services), drinking in public, and assembling in any sized group (including groups not practicing social distancing)
      -end the harassment of people suffering from mental health problems or who are inebriated (and not harassing or hurting anyone)
      -redirect funding used to enforce laws against the above mentioned behaviour towards inner city economic development and mental health programs
      -end carding of people who are not committing a crime
      -ensure that all police are equipped with mini cams that must be active during all forms of law enforcement
      -refocus law enforcement on protecting people from violence, theft, and other clear crimes intended to hurt people 
      What do you think must change?
    • By Hussain
      Can you ever imagine a country like Canada not having clean drinking water? In the 1970s the Canadain government promised to bring clean drinking water to all of Canada. Now in 2020 100% of cities of clean drinking water and 99% of rural areas have clean drinking water. the 1% which is missing is the Indigenous reserves. People living on the reserves don't have access to clean drinking water. They are poorly funded. Now the question of what would the Canadian government do if Toronto had no cleaning drinking water?
      BTW if you guys want to know more about me and my youtube channel check it out. I interview high profile politicians including Former PMs and MPs and Senators. 
       
    • By dialamah
      There is a town in Michigan where only practicing Christians are allowed to buy or inherit real estate.   The bylaw has been around since the 1940s, first passed to prevent Jews from buying, and was strengethened in 1986.  Non-Christians can rent.  The bylaw is being challenged in Court.  
      Although this bylaw is clealy discriminatory, my initial reaction is its ok in this context.  If a group of people want to create their own community, they should be allowed to do so.  But I thought I would put it out here to hear other thoughts.
      The article is a good read, btw, as it highlights the issues people are facing as the population has grown more progressive but the bylaw has not.
  • Tell a friend

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