Canadian Politics Thread

[bishopshodan]

3 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

This is the second time someone has sent me this article on the same quote. I’m talking about radical left. 

 

You already answered me about this post about a week ago.

 

To which you said...

 

"Everyone is in the centre, there is no argument there. The majority of the people who make posts on here describing a whimsical socialist utopia however are not. "

 

So, it looks like I was both people that sent you that article.  

 

 

[LaBamba]

20 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

 

You already answered me about this post about a week ago.

 

To which you said...

 

"Everyone is in the centre, there is no argument there. The majority of the people who make posts on here describing a whimsical socialist utopia however are not. "

 

So, it looks like I was both people that sent you that article.  

 

 

Most people who want to share wealth have no wealth. Most people who have Wealth, didn’t get wealthy by sharing money. Not all, but most. 
if you are wealthy and want the liberal government to take your money and the responsibility to distribute it. You’re likely entering the early stages of dementia. 

[Calamity K]

9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

I'm curious if you support defunding the CBC? Please answer.

 

As for your question, yes I'm on record as saying go after royalty increases when times are good. Oil companies will blindly agree, both federally and Provincially. Notley and Stelmach wanted to raise royalties when times were bad. Didn't work well. Also you do realize all corporate business get "corporate tax breaks. Right? Trudeau could raise corporate taxes.

 

As for the bolded could you provide these facts.

A serious liberal would be crazy to want to defund the CBC. It's a billion-dollar taxpayer donation to Liberal/NDP philosophy/campaigns.

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Calamity K said:

A serious liberal would be crazy to want to defund the CBC. It's a billion-dollar taxpayer donation to Liberal/NDP philosophy/campaigns.

While he does seem to defend the liberals lots, he has made clear to me in the past that he votes NDP. I'm not sure where they are at these days with the CBC, but if I'm not mistaken under Thomas Mulcair I believe they look to increase CBC funding if that's even possible lol

[Calamity K]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

While he does seem to defend the liberals lots, he has made clear to me in the past that he votes NDP. I'm not sure where they are at these days with the CBC, but if I'm not mistaken under Thomas Mulcair I believe they look to increase CBC funding if that's even possible lol

Yes, I wasn't directly aiming that at Hippy.

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Calamity K said:

Yes, I wasn't directly aiming that at Hippy.

I remember when MI was the liberal leader and CBC had a poll to tell Canadians which party they support based off the poll on the website and I remember it was something ridiculously high pointing to the liberals, yet the liberals got beat in a landslide. Basically no matter what you answered, it was going to tell you you were a liberal. Pretty biased corporation for sure

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

I remember when MI was the liberal leader and CBC had a poll to tell Canadians which party they support based off the poll on the website and I remember it was something ridiculously high pointing to the liberals, yet the liberals got beat in a landslide. Basically no matter what you answered, it was going to tell you you were a liberal. Pretty biased corporation for sure

 

are you taking about the original "poll tracker" thing? all that did was show most Canadians are centrists, which I think is still true today. 

 

[Ryan Strome]

Just now, Bob Long said:

 

are you taking about the original "poll tracker" thing? all that did was show most Canadians are centrists, which I think is still true today. 

 

I can't even recall. I believe it was when Michael was the leader. It was a pretty big story at the time because it was telling everybody they would likely support the liberal party. It was during the campaign. When I get a little free time today, I can find you the story if you like.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

I can't even recall. I believe it was when Michael was the leader. It was a pretty big story at the time because it was telling everybody they would likely support the liberal party. It was during the campaign. When I get a little free time today, I can find you the story if you like.

 

no I remember. They were trying to align what parties claimed they stood for with values you have. So yeah it was "biased" in the sense that liberals claimed more of the centre ideas and most of us kind of tend centre.

 

I do think CBC needs a massive overhaul tho. It does need more views represented. Lets have a program that has more open debate, more ideas from all sides, etc. Better programming, the whole shtick. And if it can't do that, claw it back to radio and some streaming and save 1 billion. 

[bishopshodan]

33 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Most people who want to share wealth have no wealth. Most people who have Wealth, didn’t get wealthy by sharing money. Not all, but most. 
if you are wealthy and want the liberal government to take your money and the responsibility to distribute it. You’re likely entering the early stages of dementia. 

I dont know why you are making this statement to me.

 

Brief coles notes of our convo about this..

 

1- I quoted a part of a post of yours critising 'the left'.... you siad "4.They hate anyone that makes money. " I supplied you with the info from thats article that showed that in Canada rich people are all over the spectrm ( note i only sent that to you once)

2- You agreed/amended your statement and said "Everyone is in the centre, there is no argument there. The majority of the people who make posts on here describing a whimsical socialist utopia however are not."

3- Today you thought that I was another poster sending you that article. 

4- You didn't acknowledge #3 and moved on to talk about how people must have dementia if they want govs to take money and responsibility distribute it.... where did that come from? what about my responses brought that out?

 

Speaking of dementia  ....( i kid, i kid)

Edited October 6, 2023 by bishopshodan

[Bob Long]

9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Typical liberal hand to play.

 

Conservatives have argued this bill, which would increase the seriousness of an assault if the victim is pregnant, is about public safety, not abortion, accusing the Liberals of desperately trying to stir controversy to deflect from their own problems.

 

“When the Liberals are doing something wrong, when they’re in a corner, when the polls are down, we see them try to distract and bring up this age-old conversation,” said Conservative MP Michelle Ferreri. “We are not going to reopen this (debate), this is about public safety.”

 

Jack Fonseca, spokesperson for the Campaign Life Coalition, said that Wagantall’s private member’s bill would do nothing to reduce the number of abortions nor create rights of a fetus.

 

“Nonetheless, it does help to increase respect for human life by drawing attention to the fact that there’s an extra injustice when a pregnant woman is violently attacked because there’s a baby in her womb that is also being attacked at the same time,” he said.

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/conservatives-poilievre-anti-abortion-parliament-hill-protest

 

this is just another useless wedge attempt. This is the kind of crap we need less of in government. There's no need for this bill, other than to attempt to build up a base of laws to eventually try for an anti-choice law. 

 

No one would argue against tougher sentencing for some scum who beats up a pregnant woman. Judges can take that into account now in sentencing, there's no need for some additional law. The CLC is full of crap, Fonseca shows his hand in that second sentence. 

 

 

[Ryan Strome]

28 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Most people who want to share wealth have no wealth. Most people who have Wealth, didn’t get wealthy by sharing money. Not all, but most. 
if you are wealthy and want the liberal government to take your money and the responsibility to distribute it. You’re likely entering the early stages of dementia. 

Bingo.

[Ryan Strome]

1 minute ago, Bob Long said:

 

this is just another useless wedge attempt. This is the kind of crap we need less of in government. There's no need for this bill, other than to attempt to build up a base of laws to eventually try for an anti-choice law. 

 

No one would argue against tougher sentencing for some scum who beats up a pregnant woman. Judges can take that into account now in sentencing, there's no need for some additional law. The CLC is full of crap, Fonseca shows his hand in that second sentence. 

 

 

I just see a bunch of people on here telling me about all the conservative members of parliament that are anti-woman's right to choose but have not shown me any verifiable proof. The website they point to is a very biased group that actually doesn't provide any evidence other than just writing down what the person allegedly said. So if you are able to offer me who these members of parliament are, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

[Bob Long]

1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

I just see a bunch of people on here telling me about all the conservative members of parliament that are anti-woman's right to choose but have not shown me any verifiable proof. The website they point to is a very biased group that actually doesn't provide any evidence other than just writing down what the person allegedly said. So if you are able to offer me who these members of parliament are, I would appreciate that. Thank you.

 

I think @aGENT posted this already but if not: https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations-anti-bills/. "Anti-Choice Private Member Bills and Motions Introduced in Canada Since 1987"

 

 

 

 

[Warhippy]

9 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

I'm curious if you support defunding the CBC? Please answer.

 

As for your question, yes I'm on record as saying go after royalty increases when times are good. Oil companies will blindly agree, both federally and Provincially. Notley and Stelmach wanted to raise royalties when times were bad. Didn't work well. Also you do realize all corporate business get "corporate tax breaks. Right? Trudeau could raise corporate taxes.

 

As for the bolded could you provide these facts.

1.  I do not support defunding CBC to the extent you suggest as it is in fact a Canadian staple and like it or not is still very impartial in regards to simply reporting the news.  Far too many privately owned media outlets are now no longer reporting the news but are instead opinion pieces and talking heads that push outright agendas.  No amount of finger pointing or snivelling will show that the CBC is anything like this.  Avoid opinion pieces and OPeds and it's fine.  I do suggest and agree that tax money should not go towards subsidizing privately owned media though.  Business should not need tax money to survive or else it is in fact a defacto welfare company or parasite unable to stand on its own feet.  This does nto mean I do not think that CBC does not need a rework or to be brought to heel in some aspects at all.  As they would be funded by taxpayers they should be beholden to us and as such at arms length from the political theater.

 

2.  I am staunchly against corporate welfare.  Always have been and you know this.  I feel as though energy companies suckle a ton at the tax payer teet under the guise or threat of relocating or shuttering energy development.  With energy and oil right now raking in INSANE profits higher than ever they should absolutely not need a dime of tax payer assistance.  Not in the form of subsidization.  Not in the form of training assistance.  Not in the form of tax breaks and incentives and not in the form of cleaning up orphaned wells via the dissolving of a shell company and the wiping away of any involvement.  If a corporation in the energy sector or grocery sector has raked in profits higher than at any point in time in their history and engaged in a series of share buy backs while still taking tax payer assistance during times of massive inflationary pressures; then they need to get their god damned hands out of my cookie jar.

 

3.  As you said previously.  Google it.

 

But, Poiliverre was staunchly in the pro life camps until late 2019.  He has talked out of both sides of his life regarding this.  his voting history and statements or attendance were and are part of public record including statements about abortions and same sex marriages.  Here are various links regarding how he has turned his back on his beliefs after getting a bit of power and how he won't stop MPs from putting a motion forward for it.  How he was a pro life darling.  how mad they are at him after 2020 when he changed his tune.  Again part of public record.  When you have literally done nothing else with your life except being a politician as an adult this is easily found information

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/poilievre-says-he-d-let-conservative-mps-introduce-abortion-legislation-but-that-it-wouldn-t/article_e0821062-d5bc-55c4-bd08-ce55db5859eb.html

 

https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/the-inconvenient-anti-choice-record-of-poilievre/

 

He voted for a Conservative motion in December 2006 to repeal Canada’s same-sex marriage law. The motion was defeated, 175-123, and Poilievre has recently said he considers same-sex marriage “a success.” In 2012, he would vote for a motion to study whether a fetus is a human being before birth. That motion was also defeated, 203-91, and Poilievre now says he is “pro-choice.”

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/09/conservative-pierre-poilievre-in-his-own-words-00055343

 

https://www.voteprolife.ca/find/view/mp/province//id/234/name/pierre-poilievre/#quotes. (flip floppin)

 

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/hot-news/id/256. (pro life supported candidates 2015)

 

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2005/4/19/pierre-poilievre-1/only/

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/we-cannot-endorse-him-social-conservatives-accuse-pierre-poilievre-of-being-pro-abortion

 

Yet, back in 2010, he voted in favour of a bill that would have criminalized pressuring a woman to get an abortion and in favour of a motion that would have had Parliament study when a fetus becomes a human being.

 

Edited October 6, 2023 by Warhippy

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

I think @aGENT posted this already but if not: https://www.arcc-cdac.ca/presentations-anti-bills/. "Anti-Choice Private Member Bills and Motions Introduced in Canada Since 1987"

 

 

 

 

Okay so again I'm not really offered any proof into who all these members of parliament are. Based off the very last one which wasn't an anti -abortion bill, it's hard to take it serious. But again I don't see nothing about any members of parliament there other than a whole lot of liberals and reform members. It's also a biased take on what is considered an anti-abortion bill lol. Again, I'm just asking and trying to be very nice about it for somebody to provide actual proof of somebody being against a woman's right to choose. Thank you

[Ryan Strome]

3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

1.  I do not support defunding CBC to the extent you suggest as it is in fact a Canadian staple and like it or not is still very impartial in regards to simply reporting the news.  Far too many privately owned media outlets are now no longer reporting the news but are instead opinion pieces and talking heads that push outright agendas.  No amount of finger pointing or snivelling will show that the CBC is anything like this.  Avoid opinion pieces and OPeds and it's fine.  I do suggest and agree that tax money should not go towards subsidizing privately owned media though.  Business should not need tax money to survive or else it is in fact a defacto welfare company or parasite unable to stand on its own feet

 

2.  I am staunchly against corporate welfare.  Always have been and you know this.  I feel as though energy companies suckle a ton at the tax payer teet under the guise or threat of relocating or shuttering energy development.  With energy and oil right now raking in INSANE profits higher than ever they should absolutely not need a dime of tax payer assistance.  Not in the form of subsidization.  Not in the form of training assistance.  Not in the form of tax breaks and incentives and not in the form of cleaning up orphaned wells via the dissolving of a shell company and the wiping away of any involvement.  If a corporation in the energy sector or grocery sector has raked in profits higher than at any point in time in their history and engaged in a series of share buy backs while still taking tax payer assistance during times of massive inflationary pressures; then they need to get their god damned hands out of my cookie jar.

 

3.  As you said previously.  Google it.

 

But, Poiliverre was staunchly in the pro life camps until late 2019.  He has talked out of both sides of his life regarding this.  his voting history and statements or attendance were and are part of public record including statements about abortions and same sex marriages.  Here are various links regarding how he has turned his back on his beliefs after getting a bit of power and how he won't stop MPs from putting a motion forward for it.  How he was a pro life darling.  how mad they are at him after 2020 when he changed his tune.  Again part of public record.  When you have literally done nothing else with your life except being a politician as an adult this is easily found information

 

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/poilievre-says-he-d-let-conservative-mps-introduce-abortion-legislation-but-that-it-wouldn-t/article_e0821062-d5bc-55c4-bd08-ce55db5859eb.html

 

https://rabble.ca/politics/canadian-politics/the-inconvenient-anti-choice-record-of-poilievre/

 

He voted for a Conservative motion in December 2006 to repeal Canada’s same-sex marriage law. The motion was defeated, 175-123, and Poilievre has recently said he considers same-sex marriage “a success.” In 2012, he would vote for a motion to study whether a fetus is a human being before birth. That motion was also defeated, 203-91, and Poilievre now says he is “pro-choice.”

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/09/09/conservative-pierre-poilievre-in-his-own-words-00055343

 

https://www.voteprolife.ca/find/view/mp/province//id/234/name/pierre-poilievre/#quotes. (flip floppin)

 

https://www.campaignlifecoalition.com/hot-news/id/256. (pro life supported candidates 2015)

 

https://openparliament.ca/debates/2005/4/19/pierre-poilievre-1/only/

 

https://nationalpost.com/news/we-cannot-endorse-him-social-conservatives-accuse-pierre-poilievre-of-being-pro-abortion

 

Yet, back in 2010, he voted in favour of a bill that would have criminalized pressuring a woman to get an abortion and in favour of a motion that would have had Parliament study when a fetus becomes a human being.

 

Okay I'll go over this shortly. But so far you have offered me one member of parliament and it was a decade ago actually over that? So similar to Trudeau previously he held views that he's changed his mind on? I'm confused on my friend because I was told there was an increasing number of members of parliament. Thus far there has not been one person to show me any proof of this. 

[Ryan Strome]

@Warhippy I did Google it and I'm trying to be nice to you guys because the reality is you guys are just spewing a bunch of bullshit. I think when you make comments like grounded in fact and in arguable I think you misunderstand what those things actually mean. You guys have provided no proof whatsoever about all the claims you have made.

[Bob Long]

Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Okay so again I'm not really offered any proof into who all these members of parliament are. Based off the very last one which wasn't an anti -abortion bill, it's hard to take it serious. But again I don't see nothing about any members of parliament there other than a whole lot of liberals and reform members. It's also a biased take on what is considered an anti-abortion bill lol. Again, I'm just asking and trying to be very nice about it for somebody to provide actual proof of somebody being against a woman's right to choose. Thank you

 

well, I'd suggest that introducing a bill is 'proof'  

 

what the list in the link shows is a long history of MPs trying to introduce new laws on the topic. We don't need any new laws on this topic. Its a personal choice between a woman and her doc. Leave it there. 

 

This pregnant thing is just the latest weak wedge thingy. There will be more. 

 

Its pretty easy to find stories about MPs supporting anti-choice positions, just google CPC MP and abortion (e.g., 

)

[bishopshodan]

11 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Bingo.

I'll quote you cause Labamba and I are misfiring like my '76 Dodge Dart.

 

I dont think anyone thinks rich people like to share their wealth. In fact, most really rich people i know are cheap AF, watch their dollars with a microscope. I think it is apparent that the people that think wealth should be shared arn' t the rich ones becuase...well, this should be obvious...more and more of the wealth is being hoarded by fewer and fewer.

 

 

[King Heffy]

9 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Okay so again I'm not really offered any proof into who all these members of parliament are. Based off the very last one which wasn't an anti -abortion bill, it's hard to take it serious. But again I don't see nothing about any members of parliament there other than a whole lot of liberals and reform members. It's also a biased take on what is considered an anti-abortion bill lol. Again, I'm just asking and trying to be very nice about it for somebody to provide actual proof of somebody being against a woman's right to choose. Thank you

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/minister-women-conservative-mps-anti-abortion-rallies-abortion-2019

 

Reading the letter, multiple MPs still in their seats after attending these rallies.

[bishopshodan]

4 minutes ago, Bob Long said:

 

well, I'd suggest that introducing a bill is 'proof'  

 

what the list in the link shows is a long history of MPs trying to introduce new laws on the topic. We don't need any new laws on this topic. Its a personal choice between a woman and her doc. Leave it there. 

 

This pregnant thing is just the latest weak wedge thingy. There will be more. 

 

Its pretty easy to find stories about MPs supporting anti-choice positions, just google CPC MP and abortion (e.g., 

)

How was your trip?

 

On this topic, I drove through Courtney on Isl last Saturday. Pretty big group of anti-abortionists on the side of the main road. First i was grumpy but my frowns turned upside down as I realised the 'flipping of birds' directed at these folks was many, and not a single honk of support did I hear. 

[Bob Long]

4 minutes ago, bishopshodan said:

I'll quote you cause Labamba and I are misfiring like my '76 Dodge Dart.

 

I dont think anyone thinks rich people like to share their wealth. In fact, most really rich people i know are cheap AF, watch their dollars with a microscope. I think it is apparent that the people that think wealth should be shared arn' t the rich ones becuase...well, this should be obvious...more and more of the wealth is being hoarded by fewer and fewer.

 

 

 

^this. I've worked with a lot of very successful business folks, its not the tax paying per se - they all realize the value of a social safety net (particularly the ones I've worked with in medical devices) its the wasting of tax money that upsets them. 

[RupertKBD]

52 minutes ago, LaBamba said:

Most people who want to share wealth have no wealth. Most people who have Wealth, didn’t get wealthy by sharing money. Not all, but most. 
if you are wealthy and want the liberal government to take your money and the responsibility to distribute it. You’re likely entering the early stages of dementia. 

 

Either that, or just maybe it's because you aren't a selfish jerk.....

[bishopshodan]

1 minute ago, RupertKBD said:

 

Either that, or just maybe it's because you aren't a selfish jerk.....

 

I just did a google and came up with a few articles about some of the billioniares that are planning to not leave their wealth to their kids...or have a living will ...

 

Maybe a few of them are alright but when it comes to those that have billions, I have a hard time respecting them.

Imagine the good they could do with their money... they could solve world hunger...easily.