campaign video for an independent candidate here in BC. It's a hoot, eh? :biggrin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ&feature=youtu.be
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG6fhub9HDQ&feature=youtu.be
So in 1776 Americans threw off the boot of British oppression, and two hundred years later Canadians said "Hey . . . That, um, thingy they did. And that paper thingy they have. Maybe we should, like, maybe work on getting us one, eh?"
Yeah . . . When America finally legalizes drugs, we know who's bogarting the good stuff.
How long is long enough for things like the Homesteaders act? This is a real question. I have no idea.Being in Sask what pissed me off about Trudeau was his flip 'Why should I sell your wheat?' comment to reporters
Why? because the Federal government setup the Homesteaders act where anybody who immigrated to Sask HAD to break the land and grow crops otherwise they couldn't get property. The Feds desperately wanted a population on the prairies because of the new railroad had to have commercial flow, not to mention the Crowe rate.
That's why jackass, the Federal government created the situation now deal with it.
You're talking about something that happened 143 years ago in Canada and 153 years ago in the US. I can understand outrage if the government said in 1872 that you can get land if you settle, and then they turn their backs to farmers in 1880, just 8 years later, but you're talking about something that happened multiple generations ago. Even 1 generation seems long enough for something like that. My dad was born in Saskatchewan, my mom was born in Alberta, I was born in Washington, one grandmother was born in England, one grandfather was born somewhere in Canada (English grandma moved to Canada with him after the war), and my other grandparents are from Ukraine. I can't even guess where my family would be in 1872. Just going back 2 generations spans multiple countries, and you're talking about people who settled 6 generations ago as if there's no expectation people will move when circumstances change.The Dominion Lands Act of 1872 is the Canadian counterpart to the U.S. Homestead Act of 1862.
True, but we tend to think people are like their relatives. Saying the name Jeb Bush makes me want to throw up. I know Jeb is not George, but he's related. He might be similar. I know I'm not my dad, but I'm a lot like him. I have the same career as him, I have the same education as him, I have similar political beliefs. My brother is a bit like me. His beliefs are very similar to mine, but his personality is very different.However I don't hold Justin accountable for his dad's sins, I think people just look at him like a Silver Spoon as apposed to somebody who has had to earn it.
Yikes. I did attended Canadian public school for a few years, which was excellent btw, and I remember reading about the last time the Queen of England vetoed a Canadian bill. It forced an election, the same guy was elected again with a larger majority, and the queen never did that again. There seem to be a lot of formal titles that don't really mean anything.Prior to 1982, if Canada wanted to make any laws, they were first passed by Parliament in Canada and then passed by Parliament in England.
Being in Sask what pissed me off about Trudeau was his flip 'Why should I sell your wheat?' comment to reporters
Why? because the Federal government setup the Homesteaders act where anybody who immigrated to Sask HAD to break the land and grow crops otherwise they couldn't get property. The Feds desperately wanted a population on the prairies because of the new railroad had to have commercial flow, not to mention the Crowe rate.
That's why jackass, the Federal government created the situation now deal with it.
However I don't hold Justin accountable for his dad's sins, I think people just look at him like a Silver Spoon as apposed to somebody who has had to earn it.
True, but only because the powers of a prime minster do not exist in the US system.The Prime Minister has overwhelmingly more power than the house majority leader.
Sort of like the US. Harry Reid says no - that means no. Some majority leaders and prime minsters are stricter than others.Our senate is largely figurative, meaning our PM gets the policy they want.
I don't know about democrats, but the republican party is very strict like this. Say something about climate change and you're finished. I think it's a conservative mentality in general. There have been quite a few studies showing that conservative people are more team-oriented, and they value loyalty over correctness. When framed like that, a lot of politics suddenly make sense. Yeah Bush fucked up, but we need to defend him! He's on our team!In Canada party whipping is taken way more seriously than in the USA. If you vote against your party you get kicked out of your party and ostracized. No one does it except in exceptional circumstances.
What is the deal with governments and fucking with things? IIRC, Canada has like 1 or 2 milk companies and 1 sugar company, Rogers Sugar, which I own a few shares of. Milk in Canada is absurdly expensive due to government fuckery. Corn in the US is absurdly cheap due to fuckery, and the cheap corn is actually responsible for the creation of Mexican drug cartels because US-subsidized corn is sold below the cost of production, meaning Mexican farmers need to get into drugs if they want to make some money. Why can't we just stop all of this nonsense? Stop subsidies and legalize drugs. If you can't make money growing corn, try growing marijuana or coca.That's why the Feds were duty bound to sell our wheat, they gamed the system so they were the only option
True, but only because the powers of a prime minster do not exist in the US system.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints cabinet members. In the US, nobody has this power. The president nominates people, but they are voted on by the senate.
In Canada, the prime minister appoints senate members. In the US, nobody has this power. Senators are elected.
Outside of appointing people to unelected positions, their powers are somewhat comparable. The house and senate majority leaders have a lot more power than people realize. In cases of Canada or UK or Australia having a minority government, a US majority leader arguably has more power than a prime minister due to the 2 party system. A minority government prime minister can whip people all day and still get outvoted by the other members of parliament. It's impossible to put numbers on the amount of things that don't get passed by a minority government since having a vote fail results in a vote of no confidence, which can force an election to be called. Things that may not pass are never brought to the table, and we can't count things that didn't happen.
The majority leader in the US is the one telling the party how to vote. If he or she wants something stopped, it gets stopped. Harry Reid, former senate majority leader, was called an obstructionist because he was able to stonewall everything. He might not be appointing cabinet ministers, but he does have tremendous power when it comes to getting things passed or rejected. Of course, he's not acting alone. He talks to the president, he talks to the house leader, he talks to other members of the party, etc.
“We’re proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards,” said Trudeau.
After clicking this, I think my blood pressure doubled. It's a picture of a politician holding a baby. Look at that! He likes babies! As opposed to the other politicians who put babies in microwave ovens.
For those not familiar with top down vs bottom up, top down means an direction is figured out first, and implementation comes second. This is also known as central planning in economics or creationism in religion.article said:Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau made his first campaign trip to the Saskatchewan heartland Wednesday with the message that his party will grow the economy not from the “top down,” but from the “heart outwards.”
This makes a lot of sense. Redistributing wealth isn't really top down, but it's not bottom up either.article said:Speaking at a farmers market in Regina, Trudeau said putting more money in the pockets of the middle class is the ticket for his party to win more support in Saskatchewan, where the Liberals have only one seat and Stephen Harper’s Conservatives hold the rest.
Does he know what top down means? Right wing economic plans are typically bottom up - do nothing and hope that something good happens. Left wing plans are typically top down. Example: California giving subsidies for selling electric cars. That's top down planning. Top down isn't always a bad thing. Seatbelts in all cars are an example of top down planning.article said:“We’re proposing a strong and real plan, one that invests in the middle class so that we can grow the economy not from the top down the way Mr. Harper wants to, but from the heart outwards,” said Trudeau.
Because they're Canadians too, you stupid wise and beautiful woman. How do people tolerate this kind of hate-filled nonsense? Let's kick rich kids out of public school! They're rich, so fuck them. Let's remove their right to universal healthcare. Let's remove their right to police and fire protection. Let's remove their right to subsidized daycare and school lunches. They're rich, so they should hire their own security and pay for private education. This is absolutely disgusting. If you're going to help families, you should help all families.article said:“Why else would they send government cheques to millionaires just because they happen to have children?” said Trudeau
Which is why federal governments should be as small as possible. The only people who understand your problems are the people who have your problems. I don't expect people in Saudi Arabia to understand the challenges in my life, so how is it any less silly to expect Ottawa to care for Saskatchewan? The fate of each state, province, and territory should be left in the hands of those who live there. That means programs should be run on a state, provincial, or territorial level. A lot of things should be run on the city level.desy said:Creating balance across a huge geographical and diverse economy will always be a challenge.
I always picture a handler saying "Okay, let's run through this one more time, sir. You shake hands and you kiss babies, not . . . that was just wrong on so many levels."After clicking this, I think my blood pressure doubled. It's a picture of a politician holding a baby. Look at that! He likes babies! As opposed to the other politicians who put babies in microwave ovens.
I don't blame the politician. He obviously knows that people are stupid enough to be manipulated by something that has nothing to do with politics. Putin being on horse without a shirt comes to mind.
SNIP
don't worry.http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...deau-grow-the-economy-from-the-heart-outwards
Well hot damn. It's about time someone suggested growing the economy with hugs and rainbows and feelings. That'll do it.
What a fucking cockbag this guy is.
An interesting relative view.Milk in Canada is absurdly expensive due to government fuckery.
don't worry.
the budget will balance itself.
An interesting relative view.
Canada isn't the socialist economy of the USA where dairy farmers reap the benefits of exteme subsidies tallying around a taxpayers handputs of 60% of every $ spent.
article said:In a free market, surpluses would typically lead to lower consumer prices, but that isn’t the case in Canada because prices are fixed, she pointed out. “The system can’t accommodate fluctuations in demand,” said Ms. Findlay, who has written a series of reports advocating the dismantling of the supply management system.
Who ever claimed that other than misquotes out of context by the Conservative Party of Canada?don't worry.
the budget will balance itself.
You truly are angry and deranged..... Justify to us why relative high income earned should gain equal benefits as opposed to efficiently directing foods benefits to the portion of the population that can proportionately benefit more?Because they're Canadians too, you stupid wise and beautiful woman. How do people tolerate this kind of hate-filled nonsense?
You lying fear mongering twit.Let's kick rich kids out of public school! They're rich, so fuck them. Let's remove their right to universal healthcare. Let's remove their right to police and fire protection. Let's remove their right to subsidized daycare and school lunches. They're rich, so they should hire their own security and pay for private education. This is absolutely disgusting. If you're going to help families, you should help all families.
You know of little. Canadian provinces generally have more power and control over their direct interests than in comparison to US states.Which is why federal governments should be as small as possible. The only people who understand your problems are the people who have your problems. I don't expect people in Saudi Arabia to understand the challenges in my life, so how is it any less silly to expect Ottawa to care for Saskatchewan? The fate of each state, province, and territory should be left in the hands of those who live there. That means programs should be run on a state, provincial, or territorial level. A lot of things should be run on the city level.
You need more of that better education...Yikes. I did attended Canadian public school for a few years, which was excellent btw...
Queen of what? There has been such a queen since the 16th century... Hell, no such monarch of England since unification, centuries ago. In the context of this topic, you mean, the Queen of Canada, who is also the monarch of the United Kingdom of Great Britain....and I remember reading about the last time the Queen of England vetoed a Canadian bill.
..
Apparently, the queen of England is still technically the head of state.
source for that claim? Doesn't really make sense considering that rural folk - aka farmers - make up such a huge portion of the CPC base.Spungo, the current government has been conducting secret negotiations with the TPT where the USA isn't about to change its decrepit and excessive subsidies for its argriculture while apparently Canada is to drop its regional boards in return for opening is markets to the products from the likes of US goods sold well below their true cost of production. Free market of the USA is a scam. We should never open our market up to a hypocritical state that subsidises its inudustries with the hope for foreign potential competitors to fail under the overhwhelming scale of product dumping invasion.
That's among the many ills that the Harper Government is continueing to screw the interests and health for the majority of Canadians over.
This thread had become quite the joke of argueing for the status quo for fears of entities from 3 or 4 decades ago. Falling right in love with the Conservative redirective spin from their incredible long list of failures and even crimes.
Who ever claimed that other than misquotes out of context by the Conservative Party of Canada?
The clip comes from a February interview Trudeau gave to CPAC's Peter Van Dusen shortly after the release of the federal budget.
Unfortunately, the interview was live and there does not appear to be another clip of the full interview online. (UPDATE: CPAC got in touch to let us know the interview can be viewed here at the 27:35 mark.)
Sun News' Ezra Levant provided a short transcript in a column mocking the Liberal leader's economic chops.
Van Dusen asked Trudeau how committed he would be to a balanced budget at this moment.
"Would it worry you to go into deficit in this current climate to, as you say, put more people to work?" Van Dusen asked.
"The commitment needs to be a commitment to grow the economy and the budget will balance itself," the Grit leader replied.
Conservatives have since mocked Trudeau relentlessly over the "budget will balance itself" quip.
You truly are angry and deranged..... Justify to us why relative high income earned should gain equal benefits as opposed to efficiently directing foods benefits to the portion of the population that can proportionately benefit more?
You're likely one of these flat tax ideologues as well... Far too extreme for Canadians.
You lying fear mongering twit.
Not all families are in as equal need. To benefit society one miss be efficient with policies and recognise the more economically marginalised generally do return poorer health and educational performance, therefore with the limited budgetary funds it is stupidity to waste funds on those who would benefit less, and rather direct a larger proportional of those funds that would likely return a greater benefit to society and possibly even invest to save from long term social costs