Federal Government & Politics II

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by whatnext

LOL, obviously someone has forgotten “the budget will balance itself”. There’s a real in-depth answer for ya

The two greatest lines ever uttered by a Liberal politician in Canada:

1) - "and the budget will balance itself", - Justin Trudeau (our illustrious Prime Minister)
2) - "I'm entitled to my entitlements" - David Dingwall (currently President of CBU and working on his fourth publicly funded pension).

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

The idea that enforcement is the weak leg in those four pillars is frankly laughable. Have you been to a city in Canada recently? Sure we might have police working to interdict the importation of drugs but at the street level there are no enforcement resources. This is one of the four pillars of a coming Conservative wipe out. Even the BC NDP are making a complete 180 on this failed policy of focussing on harm reduction.

Enforcement is not the weak leg, that is the complete opposite of what I'm saying. There's always money for more police officers but there's never enough money for treatment or harm reduction. The other three pillars aren't given a blank cheque the way police departments are. "There are no enforcement resources" is a complete fallacy. There are always cops. Police budgets are always going to increase, they're never going to be cut.

And I'm not saying that we're at a "maximum enforcement scenario" either, yet when push comes to shove there are always enough cops to do sweeps through Hastings but there aren't enough supports for people after they get swept up.

When was I last downtown Vancouver? Wednesday. When were you last downtown Vancouver?

[trueviking]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

The two greatest lines ever uttered by a Liberal politician in Canada:

1) - "and the budget will balance itself", - Justin Trudeau (our illustrious Prime Minister)

this was taken so ridiculously out of context.

The full quote:

"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself."

He is right.....total quote mining.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by trueviking

this was taken so ridiculously out of context.

The full quote:

"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself."

He is right.....total quote mining.

Yes and it would have (covid aside) if there had been a committment to grow the economy and no virute signal on Climate and other issues.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by trueviking

this was taken so ridiculously out of context.

The full quote:

"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself."

He is right.....total quote mining.

I am not sure the longer version of the quote is any better. It shows a complete lack of a grasp of basic economics. Clearly the words of a nepo baby that never had to have a job or worry about personal finances.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by trueviking

this was taken so ridiculously out of context.

The full quote:

"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself."

He is right.....total quote mining.

So what exactly was that “commitment”? Hiking the capital gains tax?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by whatnext

So what exactly was that “commitment”? Hiking the capital gains tax?

It was a commitment to deficit-financed entitlement programs and massive immigration.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The problem with the notions being supported by the "drug program experts" is they don't care about society as a whole, only the addicts.

It's not fair to the rest of society to just let crazed out drug addicts free-range all over our cities, litter them with needles & harassing bystanders - but that's precisely what happens when you push all this "harm reduction" crap while rejecting the notion of recovery/abstinence.

Even the BC NDP has come to their senses on this one, because - shocker - telling the public dealing with these free-range crazies all over their cities that they're evil people for having an issue with it is not a winning electoral strategy.

I suspect this is more in line with how the 'silent majority' feels about it. The people working hard to better themselves and provide for their families tend to get taken for granted, while we worry about the people who have tossed their lives to the curb. Don't get me wrong, it's tragic, but do we let society go to hell for the sake of the people who don't give a damn about society, or even themselves? You do what you can to help them, but in the end there's only so much you can do when the person is their own worst enemy.

Meanwhile, how about measures to prevent the next generation of addicts from making that decision to put that stuff in their bodies for the first time? What about bringing back proper mental health care so that they have better options than just ending up on the street? I know it can be done because just a couple of decades ago it wasn't as bad as it is now. We can go back to there but it will be difficult and expensive because so much damage has been done. Plus the drugs are more potent and addictive than ever... But we have to do it, and I don't think just giving current addicts clean drugs and a safe place to carry on their addictions solves anything, other than to help sympathizers feel better about themselves. Meanwhile the problem continues to worsen.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And this is happening exactly as the fertility rate hits a record low:

https://globalnews.ca/news/10773914/...ity-rate-2023/

People give me shit on this forum and call me ageist. But look at the net effect of these fucking policies. This country is working overtime to destroy young families. And now trying to prevent family formation to begin with.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you regularly post here in a way that suggests that you are ageist. It's considered okay on SSP for some reason, perhaps because it's long been a practice in our western society to devalue people once they reach the age that they are no longer working, and especially if their ideas and values clash with the ideas and values of the younger generations who actually hold the power, whether they realize it or not.

That isn't to say that you don't post good information, or have very thoughtful, intelligent ideas on some topics, but frankly the bile you spew towards 'old people' makes it a little hard to read sometimes, for me anyway. Not that I consider myself to be an 'old person', but I know and love many who would fit into that category, and frankly the negativity towards their cohort tends to become annoying after awhile.

IMHO, if you were to substitute some other group for 'old people' in the way you talk about them in many of your posts, such as 2SLGBTQI+, or some racial or ethnic group, you would probably be banned. But old people are open season. Meanwhile you rightly had a shit fit when somebody made disparaging comments about "Indians" not long ago. And why wouldn't you be offended when somebody says something bad and unfair about a group that you identify with? It didn't feel very good, did it?

Above all that, you may find that many 'old people' agree with your ideas, that things are broken and we have to return to a world where younger people have the same opportunities that young people had in the past. Part of the problem appears to be that it seems to be difficult to attract intelligent people into politics these days... or maybe that the system favours those who are great at spewing bullshit and getting people pissed off at one another but have little else to offer.

Either way change has to happen, and I feel (or hope, at least) that the younger generations have the ability to turn things around. Meanwhile, getting pissed off at old people seems a little myopic, considering that if things go reasonably well in their lives, everybody will be an 'old person' someday, and if all they have is resentment from the younger generations, well... you have that to look forward to. At least you will be able to grumble with your fellow 'old people' as you sit in long term care facility and hope that you get the nice staff member to help you out today and not the person who resents you for just being alive.

Anyhow... I shouldn't really say anything, but when you make a statement attempting to justify your ageist comments, it felt like something had to be said. I'll go back to lurking now...

[Hecate]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Don't take this the wrong way, but you regularly post here in a way that suggests that you are ageist. It's considered okay on SSP for some reason, perhaps because it's long been a practice in our western society to devalue people once they reach the age that they are no longer working, and especially if their ideas and values clash with the ideas and values of the younger generations who actually hold the power, whether they realize it or not.

That isn't to say that you don't post good information, or have very thoughtful, intelligent ideas on some topics, but frankly the bile you spew towards 'old people' makes it a little hard to read sometimes, for me anyway. Not that I consider myself to be an 'old person', but I know and love many who would fit into that category, and frankly the negativity towards their cohort tends to become annoying after awhile.

IMHO, if you were to substitute some other group for 'old people' in the way you talk about them in many of your posts, such as 2SLGBTQI+, or some racial or ethnic group, you would probably be banned. But old people are open season. Meanwhile you rightly had a shit fit when somebody made disparaging comments about "Indians" not long ago. And why wouldn't you be offended when somebody says something bad and unfair about a group that you identify with? It didn't feel very good, did it?

Above all that, you may find that many 'old people' agree with your ideas, that things are broken and we have to return to a world where younger people have the same opportunities that young people had in the past. Part of the problem appears to be that it seems to be difficult to attract intelligent people into politics these days... or maybe that the system favours those who are great at spewing bullshit and getting people pissed off at one another but have little else to offer.

Either way change has to happen, and I feel (or hope, at least) that the younger generations have the ability to turn things around. Meanwhile, getting pissed off at old people seems a little myopic, considering that if things go reasonably well in their lives, everybody will be an 'old person' someday, and if all they have is resentment from the younger generations, well... you have that to look forward to. At least you will be able to grumble with your fellow 'old people' as you sit in long term care facility and hope that you get the nice staff member to help you out today and not the person who resents you for just being alive.

Anyhow... I shouldn't really say anything, but when you make a statement attempting to justify your ageist comments, it felt like something had to be said. I'll go back to lurking now...

Do you think the old people are being selfish entitled ageists when they make and support policies that are hurting younger generations to benefit themselves?
Because I do.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Don't take this the wrong way, but you regularly post here in a way that suggests that you are ageist. It's considered okay on SSP for some reason, perhaps because it's long been a practice in our western society to devalue people once they reach the age that they are no longer working, and especially if their ideas and values clash with the ideas and values of the younger generations who actually hold the power, whether they realize it or not.

That isn't to say that you don't post good information, or have very thoughtful, intelligent ideas on some topics, but frankly the bile you spew towards 'old people' makes it a little hard to read sometimes, for me anyway. Not that I consider myself to be an 'old person', but I know and love many who would fit into that category, and frankly the negativity towards their cohort tends to become annoying after awhile.

IMHO, if you were to substitute some other group for 'old people' in the way you talk about them in many of your posts, such as 2SLGBTQI+, or some racial or ethnic group, you would probably be banned. But old people are open season. Meanwhile you rightly had a shit fit when somebody made disparaging comments about "Indians" not long ago. And why wouldn't you be offended when somebody says something bad and unfair about a group that you identify with? It didn't feel very good, did it?

Above all that, you may find that many 'old people' agree with your ideas, that things are broken and we have to return to a world where younger people have the same opportunities that young people had in the past. Part of the problem appears to be that it seems to be difficult to attract intelligent people into politics these days... or maybe that the system favours those who are great at spewing bullshit and getting people pissed off at one another but have little else to offer.

Either way change has to happen, and I feel (or hope, at least) that the younger generations have the ability to turn things around. Meanwhile, getting pissed off at old people seems a little myopic, considering that if things go reasonably well in their lives, everybody will be an 'old person' someday, and if all they have is resentment from the younger generations, well... you have that to look forward to. At least you will be able to grumble with your fellow 'old people' as you sit in long term care facility and hope that you get the nice staff member to help you out today and not the person who resents you for just being alive.

Anyhow... I shouldn't really say anything, but when you make a statement attempting to justify your ageist comments, it felt like something had to be said. I'll go back to lurking now...

The entire problem here is age discrimination. Older people get free money from the government just because they are old, they pay lower taxes, they get exempted from property taxes in many jurisdictions, they get massive discounts on government services (and often discounts from the private sector).

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

I don't think just giving current addicts clean drugs and a safe place to carry on their addictions solves anything, other than to help sympathizers feel better about themselves. Meanwhile the problem continues to worsen.

I am a (reluctant) supporter of safe injection sites, but, there is a lot of truth in this statement.

Advocates, "allies" and enablers of the indigent drug abusers infesting our streets refuse to acknowledge the harm that these street people cause to our communities due to ghettoization, empty storefronts and the exodus of pedestrian traffic due to aggressive panhandling and fear of bodily harm and robbery.

These fears and the consequences thereof need to be listened to, and solutions should be offered.

Safe injection sites have to be more than just a warm dry place to shoot up, and with a nurse to inject Narcan if necessary. Aggressive (and I mean aggressive) social service support should be available on site too. Users should be registered, documented, and records kept as to what types of social services and supports have been offered, and whether or not the users are compliant. Users who are amenable to treatment should be rewarded in some way. Belligerent recidivists on the other hand should be kept on a short leash and closely monitored, perhaps with ankle bracelets so that their movements can be followed. This might make it easier to charge them with petty crimes if they are so inclined, and, might give information as to who their pushers are.

As for the pushers themselves, unfortunately, I guess firing squads are not an option. The government however has to develop new legal mechanisms to keep these people off the streets, and, for a very, very long time. How about a mandatory five year sentence for a first time offence of drug pushing, and a mandatory 20 year sentence for repeat offenders........

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am a (reluctant) supporter of safe injection sites, but, there is a lot of truth in this statement.

Advocates, "allies" and enablers of the indigent drug abusers infesting our streets refuse to acknowledge the harm that these street people cause to our communities due to ghettoization, empty storefronts and the exodus of pedestrian traffic due to aggressive panhandling and fear of bodily harm and robbery.

These fears and the consequences thereof need to be listened to, and solutions should be offered.

Safe injection sites have to be more than just a warm dry place to shoot up, and with a nurse to inject Narcan if necessary. Aggressive (and I mean aggressive) social service support should be available on site too. Users should be registered, documented, and records kept as to what types of social services and supports have been offered, and whether or not the users are compliant. Users who are amenable to treatment should be rewarded in some way. Belligerent recidivists on the other hand should be kept on a short leash and closely monitored, perhaps with ankle bracelets so that their movements can be followed. This might make it easier to charge them with petty crimes if they are so inclined, and, might give information as to who their pushers are.

As for the pushers themselves, unfortunately, I guess firing squads are not an option. The government however has to develop new legal mechanisms to keep these people off the streets, and, for a very, very long time. How about a mandatory five year sentence for a first time offence of drug pushing, and a mandatory 20 year sentence for repeat offenders........

You lost me with the ankle bracelets, but yes. Giving addicts a safe place to inject without all the other tools in place (including housing) may save some lives but is not a solution.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Yes and it would have (covid aside) if there had been a committment to grow the economy and no virute signal on Climate and other issues.

JT is the clown prince of virtue signalling. He just can't help himself.........

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

You lost me with the ankle bracelets, but yes. Giving addicts a safe place to inject without all the other tools in place (including housing) may save some lives but is not a solution.

Carrot and stick.

You can't have one without the other.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

I am a (reluctant) supporter of safe injection sites, but, there is a lot of truth in this statement.

Advocates, "allies" and enablers of the indigent drug abusers infesting our streets refuse to acknowledge the harm that these street people cause to our communities due to ghettoization, empty storefronts and the exodus of pedestrian traffic due to aggressive panhandling and fear of bodily harm and robbery.

These fears and the consequences thereof need to be listened to, and solutions should be offered.

Safe injection sites have to be more than just a warm dry place to shoot up, and with a nurse to inject Narcan if necessary. Aggressive (and I mean aggressive) social service support should be available on site too. Users should be registered, documented, and records kept as to what types of social services and supports have been offered, and whether or not the users are compliant. Users who are amenable to treatment should be rewarded in some way. Belligerent recidivists on the other hand should be kept on a short leash and closely monitored, perhaps with ankle bracelets so that their movements can be followed. This might make it easier to charge them with petty crimes if they are so inclined, and, might give information as to who their pushers are.

As for the pushers themselves, unfortunately, I guess firing squads are not an option. The government however has to develop new legal mechanisms to keep these people off the streets, and, for a very, very long time. How about a mandatory five year sentence for a first time offence of drug pushing, and a mandatory 20 year sentence for repeat offenders........

Furthermore, safe injection sites cannot be seen as a way to reduce costs. A lot of the whole concept is vulnerable to reaction from the War On Drugs, in that we take a way too laissez faire attitude towards addiction and never getting around to treatment or prevention.