# Minister of the Environment is an Idiot...



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

Baird is an idiot, and this proves it. The following is a quote from Baird in the house of commons...

_Mr. Speaker, I think that was an excellent description of the previous Liberal government.

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition that when he says we should have acted one year ago, I say he should have acted 10 years ago.

The Leader of the Opposition can quote Goldman Sachs. I can quote someone speaking about Canada's environmental role in the world:

--Canada, once again providing leadership in the world, fighting above its weight class and showing moral authority to the rest of the world. That's what Canada's known for.

Do we know who said that yesterday? Al Gore._

It Turns out that is not exactly what Gore said and how he said it. Various Media outlets have jumped on this.

From As It Happens...

_"Well, it seems Mr. Gore remembers what he said a little differently. Yesterday, the former Vice-President issued a statement saying that Minister Baird mischaracterized his comments. For their part, the Conservatives tabled a transcript of a report on Global television that suggested Mr. Gore made the comments at the Santa Barbara Film Festival on February 4th.

So who's right in this battle of he said - he said? You be the judge. For the record, here's Al Gore speaking about Stephen Harper to a reporter from Global's Entertainment Tonight Canada, at that festival."_

http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/media/dailyshow/2007-02-13-aih2.ram

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/12/baird-gore.html?ref=rss


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I would have chosen a much stronger word than idiot!
I'm not allowed to share the words I'd use in this forum...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Well, now that we have the Liberal (the party who did SFA about the environment in over 10 years) supporters out of the way . . .


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Well, now that we have the Liberal (the party who did SFA about the environment in over 10 years) supporters out of the way . . .


SINC I am not a Liberal supporter. Stop insulting me. I have never voted Liberal and probably never will. I find them ALMOST as distasteful as the Conservatives. How would you like it if I called you a Liberal? I think apologies are in order...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

OK, then I apologize for you being NDP?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> OK, then I apologize for you being NDP?


That's better! :clap: :lmao: :heybaby:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Well, now that we have the Liberal (the party who did SFA about the environment in over 10 years) supporters out of the way . . .


And the Cons are well on their way of repeating the exact same thing... if they can manage to retain some semblance of power. :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Liberals could have done much more but few on the planet were aware of the speed of change or magnitude of the problem...it is NOW Priority One in the public's mind and it's Stephen's Harpers job to turn that priority into ffective legislation ..instead.....from the very bunch of dinosaurs that denied there was an problem at all........ALL we get is finger pointing instead of legislation.

Harper and crew are pathetic on this aspect and no amount of "the Liberals did it" changes that fact.

Right on the money










Harper HAS a chance to show that a minority parliament can get good legislation through ...he is dropping the ball on this big time and not just on climate.
He's still playing politics, pandering to Quebec when he should be dealing with "good governance" accommodating the opposition views. 

Canada is in for a long run of minorities - it's no bad thing if the bloody idiots in Ottawa start cooperating and looking at compromise legislation in stead of endless politicking.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There three people squabbling about who should drive. Eventually they stop, and change drivers. The new driver accelerates towards the cliff and argues vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.

That about sums it up.


----------



## planders (Jun 24, 2005)

bryanc said:


> Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There three people squabbling about who should drive. Eventually they stop, and change drivers. The new driver accelerates towards the cliff and argues vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.
> 
> That about sums it up.


Bravo! That should be a letter to the editor somewhere.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There three people squabbling about who should drive. Eventually they stop, and change drivers. The new driver accelerates towards the cliff and argues vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.
> 
> That about sums it up.


Excellent analogy.

Baird is an idiot. A loud mouthed loutish idiot. I'm assuming Harper's strategy was to give the loudest finger pointer the portfolio. His job to merely distract us from Harper's real agenda with the Liberals poor track record. Did he (Harper) think for a second that any 'thinking voter' would believe Baird was a good choice and the right man for the job?

Maybe he's not worried about the 'thinking voter'.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Excellent analogy.
> 
> Baird is an idiot. A loud mouthed loutish idiot. I'm assuming Harper's strategy was to give the loudest finger pointer the portfolio. His job to merely distract us from Harper's real agenda with the Liberals poor track record. Did he (Harper) think for a second that any 'thinking voter' would believe Baird was a good choice and the right man for the job?
> 
> Maybe he's not worried about the 'thinking voter'.


He's been on the job for less than a month, I think more time should tell if he is the right man for the job.

The "thinking voter" should be thinking that the Liberal Environment minister couldn't get the job done then, how is he going to get it done as a PM?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

How do you "get the job done" when you are neither the PM or the Finance Minister and the environment is way down the priority list.?? Get real.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> He's been on the job for less than a month, I think more time should tell if he is the right man for the job.
> 
> The "thinking voter" should be thinking that the Liberal Environment minister couldn't get the job done then, how is he going to get it done as a PM?


I see you are employing Baird's tactics. Nicely done!

BTW, do you honestly believe Harper is going to change his enviromental (& other) spots now that he is in (sort of) power? Baird is a barking dog guarding the house, nothing more.

PS. I'm ONLY concerned with the 'Conservatives'. The game of he said she said will get us nowhere fast.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> How do you "get the job done" when you are neither the PM or the Finance Minister and the environment is way down the priority list.?? Get real.


I can buy that. The PM and the Finance Minister of the day were much too busy with corruption and deceit to care.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> I can buy that. The PM and the Finance Minister of the day were much too busy with corruption and deceit to care.


More Baird! :clap:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> More Baird! :clap:


Nope. More _truth_.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> I see you are employing Baird's tactics. Nicely done!


And I see that the Liberal "hidden agenda" propaganda has worked well on you too.



mrjimmy said:


> BTW, do you honestly believe Harper is going to change his enviromental (& other) spots now that he is in (sort of) power? Baird is a barking dog guarding the house, nothing more.


Probably not, but I'm not too concerned about the hot button issue of the month, I'm more worried about issues that really need addressing, and can be fixed in my lifetime.



mrjimmy said:


> PS. I'm ONLY concerned with the 'Conservatives'. The game of he said she said will get us nowhere fast.


And I'm worried that Canadians will forget about the 12 years of Liberal inaction and curruption, do you really think they can change their spots?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> And I'm worried that Canadians will forget about the 12 years of Liberal inaction and curruption, do you really think they can change their spots?


:clap: :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

They're all grand-standing idiots focussed on political maneouvering. I was shocked to read a recent committee transcript and find that they actually let the invitees provide information and expert context with less spin (the committee started out quite poorly). Not no spin, but less spin. 

Question Period is another matter. Want to keep blaming the Libs to avoid attention? Want to push unachievable targets to score empty political points against the Cons? Want to act like the collaborative party to avoid a voter squeeze-play? Question Period is for you.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> And I see that the Liberal "hidden agenda" propaganda has worked well on you too.


Is that what you see? 




JumboJones said:


> Probably not, but I'm not too concerned about the hot button issue of the month, I'm more worried about issues that really need addressing, and can be fixed in my lifetime.


There are far too many ways to interpret this statement.




JumboJones said:


> And I'm worried that Canadians will forget about the 12 years of Liberal inaction and curruption, do you really think they can change their spots?


I do believe my only reference to the liberals was to do with their poor track record. No? I am focusing on what the governing Government is trying to do and say. The strategey of constantly attacking the Liberals when the Conservatives are called into question is getting old. Don't you think?

Also, just because they are not Liberals doesn't make them better or more honest and effective. I am highly suspicious of their finger pointing tactics of late. It feels like smoke bombs being dropped. Makes me wonder what they are really up to.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Nope. More _truth_.


Where is your truth getting us when it comes to the current Government SINC?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

mrjimmy said:


> Where is your truth getting us when it comes to the current Government SINC?


Well, take the latest Auditor General's report for example. Much better report for this government than for any Liberal government in years. No lies or scandals uncovered either.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Well, take the latest Auditor General's report for example. Much better report for this government than for any Liberal government in years. No lies or scandals uncovered either.


Lies and scandals are de riqeur in politics. Harper's 'Liberal days' are coming.

Having an extreme right wing agenda, a gag order in place, hiding your agenda from the voters (in a desperate bid to stay in power) by saying what they want to hear and constantly pointing out others flaws as cammoflauge seems very worrisome to me. It doesn't to you?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Not nearly as much as a return of the Liberals, no.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

SINC said:


> Not nearly as much as a return of the Liberals, no.


Revenge voting. Now there's a good idea.

ps. My whole point was about focusing on The Conservatives and leaving the Liberals out of it. Your inability to do this gives me my daily dose of irony. Thanks!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

You asked me a question about the Conservatives and I answered it. Straight up no BS. End of story. Make of it what you will about any inabilities I might have. Then consider your own.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There three people squabbling about who should drive. Eventually they stop, and change drivers. The new driver accelerates towards the cliff and argues vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.
> 
> That about sums it up.


Best post I've read on ehMac for some time. Bravo.

If I may add to it, in reference to some of the resulting blah, blah after this post, I'd like to add the following:

Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There are three people in it squabbling about who should drive. One of them, wearing a blue suit, is saying, "Step on the gas, there ain't no cliff ahead." One of them, the driver, wearing a red suit is saying, "There might be a cliff ahead, but I really, really intend on turning the wheel, soon, very soon, I'll have to think about it a bit." The little guy in the back with the orange suit who has never driven before is saying, "Guys, I think there really is a cliff ahead."

Eventually they stop and change drivers. The guy in the blue suit is now driving. He accelerates towards the cliff and but as he can start to see the cliff in view, starts arguing vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.

In other news, another right wing government has dramatically got religion on anthropogenic climate change and has done an acrobatic backflip in direction. The BC Liberal*** government in their throne speech yesterday announced that "The science is clear. It leaves no room for procrastination. Global warming is real". They have pledged to cut GHG emmissions by 1/3 by 2020, or 10% below 1990 levels.

Whether this is real policy or just a PR exercise remains to be seen. As David Suzuki says, and I concur: "Maybe I am being Polyanna, but I think this man is capable of making this kind of shift, and I have great hopes for it. You know, the devil is in the details. I'm going to be very, very interested in exactly what the details are."

I've never trusted Campbell or his cronies, but I hope he is being sincere this time. He's seen what embracing the green stance has done for Schwarzenegger in California and is jumping on board. He and the Gubernator will meet this spring when Ahnold comes up to Vancouver.

It spells the end for new coal power plants that the government had planned, unless they can be made to operate without emissions through sequestration. It will likely not effect the new planned freeways and bridges, but hopefully there will now be more pressure to provide real transit options in BCs largest cities.

***For those non-BC'ers who are not aware, the BC Liberals are not affiliated with the Liberal Party of Canada and are roughly akin politically to Harper's Conservatives - without much of the socially conservative component.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

To say the Conservatives are doing more when their first action on the environment portfolio was to rescind the newly passed environment legislation the Liberals passed just before leaving office so that they could continue to say the Liberals did nothing is dishonest to say the least. This is just like the child care portfolio. Harper is truly the GW of Canada. It seems he can't open his mouth without lying. More accountability through gaged ministers and MPs. More child care through de-funding the system, and better environment by reversing legislation and goals 50 years in the future. Keep your blinders on.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

martman said:


> To say the Conservatives are doing more when their first action on the environment portfolio was to rescind the newly passed environment legislation the Liberals passed just before leaving office so that they could continue to say the Liberals did nothing is dishonest to say the least. This is just like the child care portfolio. Harper is truly the GW of Canada. It seems he can't open his mouth without lying. More accountability through gaged ministers and MPs. More child care through de-funding the system, and better environment by reversing legislation and goals 50 years in the future. Keep your blinders on.


:clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The little guy in the back with the orange suit who has never driven before is saying, "Guys, I think there really is a cliff ahead."


He usually talks about the cliff but, when asked how, specifically it should be avoided, either says slow down 1 km/hr or wait for the magical pixies to take us to a better place.  

Either way, they all think they're doing the right thing.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*Baird "What an Idiot he is"*

The Bob Snyder Song as played on the CD Hi How Are You Today? by Ashley MacIsaac 

“What An Idiot He Is”. Best describes Baird's and his expressed position on the Harper Government's environmental policy. It is every thing except environ- ( it's just) -mental.  

“What An Idiot He Is” by Bob Snyder. :clap: 

Well he walks with a swagger and he talks with a sneer
Everything about him tells you don’t come near
He doesn’t bother looking to the left or to the right
He knows where he’s goin’ and he keeps it in sight
He can never figure out why he’s so uptight
What an idiot he is

He’s always gotta make a big impression on you
Gotta show you what he has and tell you what he can do
And all the while he’s gonna try to cut you down to size
Try to hide the simple truth with his elaborate lies
One thing he’ll never do is look you in the eye
What an idiot he is

He hasn’t bothered thinking since he was a kid
He’ll tell you he already knew what he had to know by then
Anyone who disagrees with him should be in prison
All he wants is what is his, even if it isn’t
You can talk until you’re blue but you can never make him listen
What an idiot he is

He thinks his only problem is he ain’t got more
Wants to get so rich he can buy the whole damn store
Well I guess he knows the value of a hard earned buck
If you try to bum some money, you’ll have no luck
But he’ll spend a couple hundred dollars for a decal on his truck
No problem

The only thing he cares about is what it’s gonna cost
And the only shame he knows is that the home team lost (you see the game?)
He’s got an EZ-Boy recliner and a colour TV
A Colt .45 hidden underneath the seat
He can hardly wait to shoot somebody in the knee
What an idiot he is

He doesn’t even know what an idiot he is
He says: “What’s an idy idy?” Lord have pity!
His favourite food is Wonderbread and Cheez-Whiz, gimmie!

He’s one percent attention and ninety-nine show
He’s always got an answer even if he doesn’t know
Tell him what it’s at, he’ll tell you where to go
What an idiot he is.

Well I see him everywhere I go and he gives me a pain
When I see him in the movies he rattles cellophane
He’s always got a dumb expression on his face
Makes me feel sorry for the human race
‘Cause I’ve got a funny feeling that he’s runnin’ the place… :lmao: and :-(


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/181782


> Tories ratchet up Kyoto bill fight
> 
> Feb 14, 2007 03:18 PM
> Canadian Press
> ...


<sarcasm> Yes the Tories are doing all they can on the environment like insisting they will ignore the will of the majority of elected officials in Parliament</sarcasm> This is a disgusting way to run a government. I have never heard of a Canadian PM saying he will ignore legislation passed by the government before. This reeks of Bush's signing statements except we don't have any such stupid provisions for him to fall back on. We need legislation making this kind of action criminal. Harper is bound by law just like the rest of us. Period.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This reminds me of the fake confidence motions the Tories introduced in 2005. Purely optics. Live by the spin, die by the spin.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> This reminds me of the fake confidence motions the Tories introduced in 2005. Purely optics. Live by the spin, die by the spin.


Please explain what is "fake" about this? You don't think the legislation will get passed? This is hardly the same thing.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Nobody has a plan to meet Kyoto without buying lots of credits or just taking the 30% penalty and the opposition still hasn't decided if they'll fall on the item (waiting for internal polls to look better). This is pure politics in trying to sway the easily swayed to believe one side "gets it" and is pushing real solutions instead of the usual (some good ideas, mostly inadequate). They're are taking the issue of the day (corruption, environment) and trying to make themselves look as virtuous and responsible as possible without actually doing much. 

Is anyone actually impressed and/or supporting the antics of any of these twits? There has been some good questioning in committee (I was surprised) but overall look at what we get. Sadly, looking at Dion's leadership platform, the Cons new-Lib policies and the NDP "plan", the three parties aren't far apart on the issue. It's all positioning around who gets the most credit for inadequate action. I hope there's a surprise (along the lines of better policies) being discussed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> :clap: :clap:


Seems to me Martin was the one who spearheaded the inquiry... don't seem to see Harper doing much about it these days--it's as if he's forgotten about it all together.

Oops. :lmao:

Still waiting for his "transparent" government. Or was that the hole between Rona's ears?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Why wasn't this bill introduced while the Liberals were still in power? I don't see how any Liberal suporter can like the idea of them trying to force the succeeding gov't to clean up their own parties mess.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

SINC said:


> Well, take the latest Auditor General's report for example. Much better report for this government than for any Liberal government in years. No lies or scandals uncovered either.



did she count dead and wounded Canadian soldiers not to mention dead Afghani civilians?

i guess lives don't fit on a balance sheet

i also notice ms fraser failed to note the lack of even ONE child care seat open up due to the $1200 tax break

i believe harpo promised that the private sector would provide about 25,000 seats

seems harpo's child care prediction record is about as good as Bush's WMD record


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

What I'd like to know is...Where can I buy these credits so that I can pollute more?
If the giant corperations can just buy credits to pollute more without getting fined
then I want to pollute too, I want a 2 stroke engine on my Motorboat...Motorbike...Motor...

Or better still...I want a coal fired car.

Dave


----------



## teknikz (Nov 20, 2006)

I concur , expect more idiocy if Fuhrer Harper is re elected


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

> Showdown Kyoto vote today
> 
> Feb 14, 2007 04:04 PM
> Canadian Press
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/181803


This article says it all. Harper has no respect for parliament and by extension the Canadian people.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i also notice ms fraser failed to note the lack of even ONE child care seat open up due to the $1200 tax break


Still more than what was done in the past.



MACSPECTRUM said:


> seems harpo's child care prediction record is about as good as Bush's WMD record


And the Liberals accounting record.

So are finally over this years hot button issue and back to last years?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

martman said:


> http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/181803
> 
> 
> This article says it all. Harper has no respect for parliament and by extension the Canadian people.


just like his heroes in the White House
"the constitution is just a piece of paper" - Pres. George W. Bush


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

martman said:


> http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/181803
> 
> 
> This article says it all. Harper has no respect for parliament and by extension the Canadian people.


[SARCASM] Maybe so, but those Liberals...[/SARCASM]


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

JumboJones said:


> Still more than what was done in the past.
> 
> And the Liberals accounting record.
> 
> So are finally over this years hot button issue and back to last years?


not so fast jumbo

liberals aren't ZERO percent in their accounting, whereas bush is ZERO in finding WMDs in Iraq (even they 'knew' where they all were) and Harper;s plan has created ZERO of the 25,000 predicted new child care seats


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> *Showdown Kyoto vote today*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/Unassigned/article/181803


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

i guess minority gov't can work sometimes, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

We'll see - Harper may not commit the dollars - contempt of parliament.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> We'll see - Harper may not commit the dollars - contempt of parliament.


That would be very telling if that happens. His carefully constructed facade may be crumbling.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

mrjimmy said:


> That would be very telling if that happens. His carefully constructed facade may be crumbling.


that's like saying I "may be" getting older

so many things harper hated when in opposition he is now applauding in power

horse of a different colour, eh?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think Dion has the bit in his teeth now - the Trust Bill is up next.
Harper's gonna squirm on that one.

Then the Kelowna Accord I'm sure is in the works.

We'll see if Harper can handle "cooperation" and "compromise" instead of politicking.

I have my doubts.

Those attack ads in Quebec on Dion remind me of the last frantic days of the Harrisites. Playing on fear instead of policy.

They even had to dig up Chretien as a bogeyman, how juvenile.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> They even had to dig up Chretien as a bogeyman, how juvenile.


Bring back the other bogeyman! Mulroney!
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

They did.....the Libs that is. 

The chin that wagged.....


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> They did.....the Libs that is.
> 
> The chin that wagged.....


What's 12 inches and sits between Ronald Reagan's legs? ....
:lmao: :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

So the vote passed.

Now, will the opposition force an election over Kyoto? 

Count down for 60 days, plus however long it takes to get through the Senate and get proclaimed.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

martman said:


> What's 12 inches and sits between Ronald Reagan's legs? ....
> :lmao: :lmao:


Could be changed currently to; What's soft and flabby and sits between Dubya's legs?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Could be changed currently to; What's soft and flabby and sits between Dubya's legs?


is harper's chin that "soft and flabby?"
i'd better email mrs. mulroney on her new taxpayer paid for webpage

uh oh, the new gov't of canada's website provider ain't doing their job


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Beej said:


> He usually talks about the cliff but, when asked how, specifically it should be avoided, either says slow down 1 km/hr or wait for the magical pixies to take us to a better place.
> 
> Either way, they all think they're doing the right thing.


I'm sure you're not defending Harper's denial of anthropogenic climate change, Beej, maybe just carrying on the argument. Maybe you thought the orange guy's plan was silly, but the blue guy until a couple of weeks ago was denying there was a cliff or a need for a plan. Now he just wants to avoid doing much at all about it, if he possibly can. His philosophical brethren in the BC Liberals seem to be showing him up, - "no excuse for procrastination" spake the fiscally conservative Gordon Campbell.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> not so fast jumbo
> 
> liberals aren't ZERO percent in their accounting, whereas bush is ZERO in finding WMDs in Iraq (even they 'knew' where they all were) and Harper;s plan has created ZERO of the 25,000 predicted new child care seats


 Sorry, I was using Liberal math, thought you would understand.

How about ZERO, exactly what the Liberals did over 12 years for a national child care program. Unless you count promising that they would.

Or Zero, the amount the GST was lowered by the Liberal Gov't over 12 years in power. Unless, of course, once again you count that they promised to eliminate it.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I want Harper to ignore this law. And I want to see this resonate in his precious Quebec and GTA. I am really curious exactly who (gets sued) and how. If it comes to lawsuits I hope it is Harper personally and the Conservative party who faces action and not the Canadian gov't. What a bastard!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Sorry, I was using Liberal math, thought you would understand.
> 
> How about ZERO, exactly what the Liberals did over 12 years for a national child care program. Unless you count promising that they would.
> 
> Or Zero, the amount the GST was lowered by the Liberal Gov't over 12 years in power. Unless, of course, once again you count that they promised to eliminate it.


Actually this is not true. Harper killed the funding already passed by the liberals as one of his first actions in office. It is completely disingenuous to repeal legislation and then say it never existed. It is a lie to say they only made promises as the legislation was already passed.

Yes go on about the GST. Who introduced the hated GST? Not the Liberals JumboJones. Wasn't the NDP or the Rhinos either. It was the Conservatives.
Lest we forget!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Yes go on about the GST. Who introduced the hated GST? Not the Liberals JumboJones. Wasn't the NDP or the Rhinos either. It was the Conservatives.
> Lest we forget!


And you rather conveniently seem to forget that the Liberals promised to abolish the GST when elected. That was just one more Liberal lie. Remember that?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> And you rather conveniently seem to forget that the Liberals promised to abolish the GST when elected. That was just one more Liberal lie. Remember that?


Can't argue there. And I agree 100%. But you can't blame the Liberal's for the GST. It was the chin.


None of this changes the fact that the Liberals did act on the environment and childcare before leaving office. None of this changes the fact that Harper recinded all this legislation and now pretends nothing was done. None of this changes the fact that Harper says he's going to ignore the will of Canada's elected government because it doesn't suit him. Like he is above Parliament and Parliament solely exists for his convenience. None of this changes the fact that Harper is a lying sack of @#&*.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Actually this is not true. Harper killed the funding already passed by the liberals as one of his first actions in office. It is completely disingenuous to repeal legislation and then say it never existed. It is a lie to say they only made promises as the legislation was already passed.


Come on, this was a knee jerk reaction to 12 years of promising with no actions, you really think they would have actually followed through with this, it would have fallen apart faster than their commitments to Kyoto.



martman said:


> Yes go on about the GST. Who introduced the hated GST? Not the Liberals JumboJones. Wasn't the NDP or the Rhinos either. It was the Conservatives.
> Lest we forget!


They did what had to be done at the time, as they are now, they like to get things done.

Lest we forget that they were elected based on this promise to abollish the GST, but even after record surpluses, they do what they do best, nothing, not even pay down the national debt. They just found ways to squander it through scandels and mismanagement. 

If it wasn't for the GST we wouldn't be in the fine finacial state we are now in, one might think it was the right thing to do, if it wasn't, why wouldn't the Liberal gov't get rid of it?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Come on, this was a knee jerk reaction to 12 years of promising with no actions, you really think they would have actually followed through with this, it would have fallen apart faster than their commitments to Kyoto.


That is speculation and nothing more. Personally I don't believe they would have reneged on this as the legislation was already passed. It would have been hard to backtrack from there and you know it. The reality is the legislation was passed and the Conservatives rescinded it making them WORSE than the do nothing Liberals. They didn't just do nothing they made matters worse.

Where are the child care positions?
Why should we wait till 2050 for action on the environment?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Come on, this was a knee jerk reaction to 12 years of promising with no actions, you really think they would have actually followed through with this, it would have fallen apart faster than their commitments to Kyoto.
> 
> They did what had to be done at the time, as they are now, they like to get things done.
> 
> ...


Well the Conservatives promised a more open government this last election and then gaged all the ministers and MPs. I'll not argue that the Liberals aren't liers too because they are but this gov't has no business pointing fingers. None.

As for financial mismanagement it was the Liberals who balanced the books not the Conservatives. Mulroney drove up the debt. The only thing worse than a tax and spend Liberal is a cut and spend Tory.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Personally I don't believe they would have reneged on this as the legislation was already passed.


 You believe this because they never did this before?



martman said:


> It would have been hard to backtrack from there and you know it.


 Backtrack, yes, run it into the ground and waste tax payers dollars ala gun registry program, would have been the order of the day. In a sadistic way I would have liked to have seen that, but that would have meant another year of Liberal BS.




martman said:


> The reality is the legislation was passed and the Conservatives rescinded it making them WORSE than the do nothing Liberals. They didn't just do nothing they made matters worse.


 Worse for who? Those who receive the money while being a stay at home parent? Or those who use it towards daycare expenses?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Where are the child care positions?


Is it really the job of the federal gov't to create a national child care program? Quebec didn't wait for one, sounds like a question you might want to ask your Premier.


martman said:


> Why should we wait till 2050 for action on the environment?


Because the Liberals F'ed up Kyoto.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You believe this because they never did this before?
> 
> Backtrack, yes, run it into the ground and waste tax payers dollars ala gun registry program, would have been the order of the day. In a sadistic way I would have liked to have seen that, but that would have meant another year of Liberal BS.
> 
> Worse for who? Those who receive the money while being a stay at home parent? Or those who use it towards daycare expenses?


Sorry the money was already there. Your fantasies speak to nothing but pure speculation. The gun registry has nothing to do with it.

Worse for the 25,000 children who never got placements because Harper was full of it. The money given to parents was no where near enough to place children in private care and every parent knows that. In fact worse for all Canadian children who were suppose to get a place in child care so their parents could afford to work.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Because the Liberals F'ed up Kyoto.


Again this gov't has no business pointing fingers here. The hypocracy is astounding. Harper called Kyoto a "socialist plot".

I'll not entertain Conservatives trying to own this issue. It is dishonest.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Worse for the 25,000 children who never got placements because harper was full of it. The money given to parents was no where near enough to place children in private care and every parent knows that. In fact worse for all Canadian children who were suppose to get a place in child care so their parents could afford to work.


:---(
What about the millions of children that were counting on it years ago? I'm sorry if you can't afford to have children...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Again this gov't has no business pointing fingers here. The hypocracy is astounding. Harper called Kyoto a "socialist plot".
> 
> I'll not entertain Conservatives trying to own this issue. It is dishonest.


You can "not entertain" whatever you want, except for one thing; the Conservatives right to own the issue if they choose to do so. That is far beyond any "not entertaining" you may possess.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> :---(
> What about the millions of children that were counting on it years ago? I'm sorry if you can't afford to have children...


This is completely disingenuous again. You can't cry for the children 12 years ago after telling the ones this year to "F" off. Yes the Liberals should have gotten their fecal matter in line a decade or more ago. But reversing the legislation when they finally do get it together is a piss poor way to demonstrate this fact.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> You can "not entertain" whatever you want, except for one thing; the Conservatives right to own the issue if they choose to do so. That is far beyond any "not entertaining" you may possess.


The Conservatives will never own this issue.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> This is completely disingenuous again. You can't cry for the children 12 years ago after telling the ones this year to "F" off. Yes the Liberals should have gotten their fecal matter in line a decade or more ago. But reversing the legislation when they finally do get it together is a piss poor way to demonstrate this fact.


 Such language!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> The Conservatives will never own this issue.


That's only your opinion.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> :---(
> I'm sorry if you can't afford to have children...


That's right only the rich should procreate.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> That's only your opinion.


Not just mine.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

It was destined to fail, just like Kyoto, and just like the Gun registry. Maybe they can pick up where they left off if they win the next election, but I wouldn't count on that.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> It was destined to fail, just like Kyoto, and just like the Gun registry. Maybe they can pick up where they left off if they win the next election, but I wouldn't count on that.


You have nothing to back up that statement except speculation. The fact is you don't know that.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> That's right only the rich should procreate.


Nope, my mother raised me on disability, and I lived in public housing around a whole lot of poor people, so I don't know where you get that. Having children, like anything in life comes with some consquenses, and you need to make sacrifices. We aren't entitled to national daycare.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> Nope, my mother raised me on disability, and I lived in public housing around a whole lot of poor people, so I don't know where you get that. Having children, like anything in life comes with some consquenses, and you need to make sacrifices. We aren't entitled to national daycare.


Finally, someone who gets it! :clap: :clap:


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> The fact is you don't know that.


We will if they get elected again.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

JumboJones said:


> We will if they get elected again.


And it is very likely they will.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> We aren't entitled to national daycare.


This your opinion and I strongly disagree. I'm sick of rich people telling me I don't have the right to: medicare, childcare, education etc. (I'm not saying you are rich as I have no idea who you are let alone how much you make but these are policies of the rich.)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> This your opinion and I strongly disagree. I'm sick of rich people telling me I don't have the right to: medicare, childcare, education etc. (I'm not saying you are rich as I have no idea who you are let alone how much you make but these are policies of the rich.)


Hardly. We raised three children while my wife stayed home and I earned under $10,000 a year. If you have the will and the determination, it can be done. Today's parents want things handed to them on a silver platter to which they are not entitled as JJ points out.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

Kyoto Bill passed today, That's a step in the right direction.
I'm sure that the Senate will pass it into law next.

This'll be interesting in the not so distant future.

Dave


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Hardly. We raised three children while my wife stayed home and I earned under $10,000 a year. If you have the will and the determination, it can be done. Today's parents want things handed to them on a silver platter to which they are not entitled as JJ points out.


This is completely irrelevant.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> This is completely irrelevant.


Nope, it is real life. Welcome aboard.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> This your opinion and I strongly disagree. I'm sick of rich people telling me I don't have the right to: medicare, childcare, education etc. (I'm not saying you are rich as I have no idea who you are let alone how much you make but these are policies of the rich.)


If people are rich it is because they worked hard to get there, I'm all for helping out others, but not carrying them on my back. I have $40,000 in student loans, and I'm paying them back, the system already has a system in place, I come from a poor family, and now I am living a middle class life. The same is there for anyone that have the ambition to work for it. But again it all came with hard work and sacrifies, I didn't expect any of this to be given to me, nor should anyone. 

I really think that if anything the healthcare system should be fixed before any new social programs get started. Or else we will have a system on our hands that will be in need of fixing in 10-20 years, if, big IF their plan ever got off the ground.

You have the right to have daycare and an education, you also have the right to pay for it too.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> If people are rich it is because they worked hard to get there


great reason for a hefty inheritance tax
if they wanna be rich, they should have to work hard to get there
great idea !!


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nope, it is real life. Welcome aboard.


My parents didn't have medicare either. Guess we don't have a right to that.This is a spurious argument.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> My parents didn't have medicare either. Guess we don't have a right to that.This is a spurious argument.


Nor did mine, but that does not make it any less real. Spurious? Hardly. Real, yes.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You're really stretching now if you are compairing healthcare and childcare, lame.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> You're really stretching now if you are compairing healthcare and childcare, lame.


Your opinion not mine.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Nor did mine, but that does not make it any less real. Spurious? Hardly. Real, yes.


Women used to not have the vote. They have no right to vote.
Spurious.

The appeal to tradition is a fallacy not a true argument.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Why anyone would want to hand off their child before kindergarten is beyond me, you wouldn't want your child to bond with you.

There is a difference between equal rights and the right to publicly funded childcare. What next the right to publicly funded maid service? How about chauffeur service? Auto repair? How about our poor pets, lets add pet healthcare too.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

The slippery slope argument is a fallacy too. How about a real argument.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Why anyone would want to hand off their child before kindergarten is beyond me, you wouldn't want your child to bond with you.


So they can work! 
<sarcasm>Oh yes children in day care never bond with their parents.</sarcasm>


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> Hardly. We raised three children while my wife stayed home and I earned under $10,000 a year. If you have the will and the determination, it can be done. Today's parents want things handed to them on a silver platter to which they are not entitled as JJ points out.


Spoken like a true old fart.

Clearly, you know nothing of "today's parents"--have you learned nothing of today's generation? We're over-worked, see less of our families, both parents work long hours, and to top it off we have old blowhards yammering about how perfect life was back in "the day" and how "today's parents" want it all on a silver platter.

Perhaps you feel entitled to having your medical bills taken care of... I see it as an old-generation adult who couldn't be bothered with being responsible to themselves by maintaining some semblance of a healthy lifestyle but instead ignored common sense and drove their ticker into the ditch.

You, sir, were handed the most silver of all platters. And how much exactly did that cost you?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

MannyP Design said:


> You, sir, were handed the most silver of all platters. And how much exactly did that cost you?


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> If people are rich it is because they worked hard to get there,


This is a load. Most rich people work no harder than their poor working counterparts. In fact many don't work at all.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> It was destined to fail, just like Kyoto, and just like the Gun registry. Maybe they can pick up where they left off if they win the next election, but I wouldn't count on that.


Actually except for a bunch of so and sos in Alberta who refuse to follow the law, the gun registry didn't fail it was just really really expensive.

But if you really want to talk guns, let's talk about the three mass killings yesterday.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> Spoken like a true old fart.
> 
> Clearly, you know nothing of "today's parents"--have you learned nothing of today's generation? We're over-worked, see less of our families, both parents work long hours, and to top it off we have old blowhards yammering about how perfect life was back in "the day" and how "today's parents" want it all on a silver platter.
> 
> ...


I'm surprised at you Manny.  

That is a low blow and you know it. It had f*** all to do with lifestyle. I inherited it from my mother's side of the family. Five of eight children died of heart attacks by age 60, my Mom included. I weighed 174 pounds at 5' 11", a result of an ongoing exercise program and an on road diet the day I had my heart attacks at age 56. Cost? Six months of my life in ICU and rehab thanks. Not to mention a $200,000 plus position I could no longer tolerate on doctors orders. An apology is warranted and expected. 

And for the record, JumboJones gets it:



JumboJones said:


> Why anyone would want to hand off their child before kindergarten is beyond me, you wouldn't want your child to bond with you.
> 
> There is a difference between equal rights and the right to publicly funded childcare. What next the right to publicly funded maid service? How about chauffeur service? Auto repair? How about our poor pets, lets add pet healthcare too.


And Martman doesn't:



martman said:


> So they can work!
> <sarcasm>Oh yes children in day care never bond with their parents.</sarcasm>


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> Actually except for a bunch of so and sos in Alberta who refuse to follow the law, the gun registry didn't fail it was just really really expensive.
> 
> But if you really want to talk guns, let's talk about the three mass killings yesterday.


Talk, talk talk. That's all the Liberals ever did with the long gun registry. Show me just how the long gun registry halted those three killings yesterday, would you? And a double murder/suicide is hardly "mass" killing.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> Talk, talk talk. That's all the Liberals ever did with the long gun registry. Show me just how the long gun registry halted those three killings yesterday, would you? And a double murder/suicide is hardly "mass" killing.


Two were in the US and it was a double murder no suicide in Toronto.

<sarcasm> Yes, every murder has to be prevented or the registry is useless!</sarcasm>


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> And Martman doesn't:


:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: 

That's right SINC the great sage who can show us all "those in the know"
:lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

martman said:


> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:
> 
> That's right SINC the great sage who can show us all "those in the know"
> :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:



When in defensive position, resort to name calling. :baby:


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

SINC said:


> When in defensive position, resort to name calling. :baby:


:-( :-( :-( :-( :-(


----------



## gmug (Feb 13, 2007)

*Today I wrote Kyoto Private Members Bill MP & Got a Nice Reply*

Subject: Good Luck with the Vote for Canada Tonight : If You Needs #'s to Talk about Count me In

Hi,

from a retired GTA Ontario elected rural Councillor

who was Called a Conspiracy Guy in a Tory Newspaper here in Ontario Last Year for Doing Similar to Him etc.

Cheers

Just me
Merci

message

Already Sent to MP Pablo Rodriguez who replied

Thank you for your support!

Pablo
--------------------------
Sent from my BlackBerry Wireless Handheld

[email protected] parl.gc.ca, [email protected] parl.gc.ca


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Man did this thread get driven into the ditch or what?

A perfect example of what bryanc illustrated with his little metaphor, all the way back in the beginning of this thread.


bryanc said:


> Picture a car driving towards a cliff. There three people squabbling about who should drive. Eventually they stop, and change drivers. The new driver accelerates towards the cliff and argues vehemently that the previous driver should've changed direction 'back there' and there's nothing he can do about the cliff.
> 
> That about sums it up.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

Let's go even further back.



da_jonesy said:


> Baird is an idiot


Aah that feels good.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

martman said:


> That's right SINC the great sage who can show us all "those in the know"





SINC said:


> When in defensive position, resort to name calling. :baby:


Just a post script: This interchange is so fabulously Canadian. I washed my kid's mouth out with soap when he first used 'great sage'. :lmao:


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> I'm surprised at you Manny.
> 
> That is a low blow and you know it. It had f*** all to do with lifestyle. I inherited it from my mother's side of the family. Five of eight children died of heart attacks by age 60, my Mom included. I weighed 174 pounds at 5' 11", a result of an ongoing exercise program and an on road diet the day I had my heart attacks at age 56. Cost? Six months of my life in ICU and rehab thanks. Not to mention a $200,000 plus position I could no longer tolerate on doctors orders. An apology is warranted and expected.


Don't hold your breath.

It's no lower of a blow than the righteous opinion you've been mouthing incessantly with respects to any generation post yours. It's offensive and incredibly small minded for you to believe that anyone younger than you is a lesser person (spoiled or otherwise) because they want more for their children or even have access to more than you did at "when you were a kid."

People don't want national daycare because they think the deserve it--It's because they flat-out f*ckin' NEED it. The number of single-parents working late-nights, double shifts, or two jobs in order to support their child(ren) doesn't necessarily have the same support you and yours had "back in the day."

It's real god-damned convenient for you to talk about responsibility and consequence when you know jack-squat about what "today's" generation has to work through in order to survive. But I guess it's easy to make blanket statements... you're sure to hit the mark eventually, right?

I have no problem paying for someone else's childcare if it means if it affords them an opportunity to get a leg-up and do more than just hope for a better life...not to mention give their child a better chance at life. It's certainly something that I'm thankful Quebec has, and I know others would like to see similar things in their province.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MannyP Design said:


> I have no problem paying for someone else's childcare if it means if it affords them an opportunity to get a leg-up and do more than just hope for a better life...not to mention give their child a better chance at life. It's certainly something that I'm thankful Quebec has, and I know others would like to see similar things in their province.


:clap: 

That's what living in a society is all about, isn't it? Giving and receiving help?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

There is no better place for society to spend money than on early childcare and education.
I'd prefer less spent on secondary if it meant being able to afford a national childcare plan.

Canada can do both.
ROI for anyone that cares is enormous but that's only a partial reason.
Study after study shows the benefits for child and society and parents.
Too many stone headed ideologue neoCons just don't get it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. More, more, more. You think this is the first generation that has had to work double shifts and late nights? I'm 28, I'd like to think I'm part of today's generation, and I feel proud of where I am as a result of hard work. I have 3 brothers and they are all still waiting for someone to come save them, they all feel this entitlement like they should be where I am without having to work for it. It's BS, there are things people can do and sacrifices they can make to survive, they just don't feel they should have to.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

Actually, childcare is related to healthcare, and directly so: children in childcare are healthier adults, get sick less as children and as adults because of brief exposures to illnesses. The benefits are immediate.

As well, there are proven benefits to children who learn to socialize in childcare settings as opposed to those misguided loners who wind up cracking off sniper shots from bell towers later in life.

JJ over the last few months you've seemed to be coming down pretty hard on the less fortunate. I'm sure it's not because you think people "deserve" what they get if they are the worse off for it. That said, I do agree with your work ethic--so I'm going to go do some work now...




JumboJones said:


> Why anyone would want to hand off their child before kindergarten is beyond me, you wouldn't want your child to bond with you.
> 
> There is a difference between equal rights and the right to publicly funded childcare. What next the right to publicly funded maid service? How about chauffeur service? Auto repair? How about our poor pets, lets add pet healthcare too.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Too many stone headed ideologue neoCons just don't get it.


No they're too busy wolfing down steaks at Hy's, high fiving each other over 'free markets' and mumbling under their breath to the beggar outside to 'get a f'ing job'.

Good times indeed.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

HowEver said:


> JJ over the last few months you've seemed to be coming down pretty hard on the less fortunate. I'm sure it's not because you think people "deserve" what they get if they are the worse off for it. That said, I do agree with your work ethic--so I'm going to go do some work now...


I can only go on what I have seen, I grew up in Gov't housing and saw many people just living off the system and their children learning to do the same. I don't think that people "deserve" this, but at the same time I don't see them doing anything about it, except coming to the gov't with cap in hand. We all have the same oportunities to become what we want in life, that is what is great about this Country, but don't expect it to come for free or with no work.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. More, more, more. You think this is the first generation that has had to work double shifts and late nights? I'm 28, I'd like to think I'm part of today's generation, and I feel proud of where I am as a result of hard work. I have 3 brothers and they are all still waiting for someone to come save them, they all feel this entitlement like they should be where I am without having to work for it. It's BS, there are things people can do and sacrifices they can make to survive, they just don't feel they should have to.


You sound quite resentful. Isn't hard work it's own reward?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

You sound pretty entitled, ever try working hard for something?

It is a nice reward, but not when others feel they should be sharing that pie with you, without having worked for their own.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

JumboJones said:


> You sound pretty entitled, ever try working hard for something?


Please. :yawn:


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MannyP Design said:


> People don't want national daycare because they think the deserve it--It's because they flat-out f*ckin' NEED it. The number of single-parents working late-nights, double shifts, or two jobs in order to support their child(ren) doesn't necessarily have the same support you and yours had "back in the day."
> 
> It's real god-damned convenient for you to talk about responsibility and consequence when you know jack-squat about what "today's" generation has to work through in order to survive. But I guess it's easy to make blanket statements... you're sure to hit the mark eventually, right?


I know much more than you give me credit for Manny.

We married in 1965 and had our first child in 1968, followed by another in 1970 and the last in 1976. During the time from 1968 through 1982 my wife stayed home and looked after our children while I was the sole bread winner. We lived in apartments because that was all a single salary would support. From 1982 through 1985 my wife returned to work as a RN and chose to work the 3:00 to 11:00 p.m. shift. I made arrangements with my employer to work from 6:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. so I could pick up our kids after school and care for them while my wife was at work. It was I who made their evening meals, entertained them until it was time to bathe them and got them to bed on time. During those years we lived in three different communities anywhere from 1,000 to 2,500 miles away from our respective parents and other immediate family members. That translates into “zero support”, rather than the kind of support you refer to “back in the day”. Combine that with my wife’s mother’s death in 1979 and my mom's in 1980 and the “support” as you prefer to call it was entirely dissolved.

In 1985 through 1988 a promotion had me in charge of the the company’s holdings in BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan and I began work weeks in the 50 to 60 hour range and travelled over 60K per year by car and a fair amount by air. It was nothing for me to be on the road by 5:00 a.m. to arrive in a community three hours down the road for a workday that began at 8:00 a.m. and ended at 5:00 p.m. when I was faced with that same three hour drive back home to end my day. During that time there were no day care services and we hired a baby sitter to come in when my wife and I were both working. My wife worked 12 hours shifts and if you know anything about health care, right to this day, she still logs many unpaid OT hours.
In 1988 until my early retirement in 2001, I became the COO of the company that was growing by leaps and bounds and I was the lead member of the “hands on” management team and in charge of acquisitions. It was then that my work week escalated, as did my travel as the company now numbered 165 branches from Quebec through BC. There were times when I didn’t even get home for 13 or 14 days at a time, working full days and weekends during the annual budget process which stretched from June 1 through the end of November of every damn year. Add to that monthly board meetings in Toronto and quarterly management meetings in various portions of the company to keep it all glued together. I was logging hundreds of thousands of miles on commercial airlines and still managing to put 40k per year on the odometer of the company vehicle here in the west.
During that time my wife continued to work and we were able to finally purchase a home in 1988, all the while, never once using day care.

Over those years we have been trying to provide the “support” you refer to, to our own children who are struggling just like you to survive. I know first hand from their bitter experiences just how tough it is out there to establish themselves in a rapidly changing world.

So don’t tell me I don’t know “jack-squat about what "today's" generation has to work through in order to survive.” I’ve been there, done that and maybe, just maybe worked much harder and longer hours than you ever will.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

SINC said:


> I’ve been there, done that and maybe, just maybe worked much harder and longer hours than you ever will.


Maybe. Maybe not.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> We all have the same oportunities to become what we want in life, that is what is great about this Country, but don't expect it to come for free or with no work.


This is a myth and you know it. Women do not have the same opportunities as men. Blacks do not have the same opportunities as whites. Immigrants do not have the same opportunities as non immigrants. Native Canadians do not have the same opportunities as non natives. The poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich. In fact this assertion is the single biggest lie promoted in our society. You come off sounding like a spoiled privileged white man.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Are you talking about opportunities or financial outcomes? Different things, what with all the choices going in. Also, particularly with regards to immigrants, language skills and social actions are a major issue, as they are for non-immigrants. Anyone have stats on first-generation Canadians (would correct for much)? As for Native Canadians, that's a whole other series of issues.

I would agree that people who have incapable and/or uncaring parents are disadvantaged. Other than that, try not to spread too many myths about presumed, "spoiled privileged white men."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

mrjimmy said:


> Just a post script: This interchange is so fabulously Canadian. I washed my kid's mouth out with soap when he first used 'great sage'. :lmao:


Well I'm not your kid and SINC is not my father.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Are you talking about opportunities or financial outcomes?


Doesn't matter because the fact is what I said is true both of these ways of looking at it. There is no equal financial outcome and the initial opportunities are not equal. Don't make me waste our time proving this you know it is true.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Doesn't matter because the fact is what I said is true both of these way of looking at it.


Not facts at all, unless you just mean all opportunities are slightly different. I got the impression you were talking about less opportunity. That's part of the lie spread to my generation. "Blame (male) ******" and so on and so forth.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

This is bunk. Let's look at the example of my GF right now. She'd like a job at York U. Now I'm not going to say she deserves said job because that is not for me to say but according to the news papers:



> 3 FULL-TIME FACULTY, BY TYPE OF APPOINTMENT (2002- 03)
> Tenured Tenure Track Non-Tenure Track
> Women 26% 38% 43%
> Men 74% 62% 57%


http://www.fedcan.ca/english/pdf/issues/indicators2004eng.pdf
This is only one indicator and only one area of society. The fact is the only people saying opportunities are equal is white men. So where is this equal opportunity?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You're looking at outcomes (I mentioned before that there is a difference), the most common mistake in such analysis. It removes any concept that people of different groups make, with statistical significance, different choices or other underlying influences (ie. recent stats on university attendance). 

"The fact is the only people saying opportunities are equal is white men." 

You don't seem to understand the difference between facts and beliefs or opinions. You're welcome to your beliefs, and this one (in being applied so generally) is a very common belief. I can see how it may apply to certain areas, but also how the reverse applies in others.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I've now given you stats and you've given squat.
I could go on and show you how many CEOs are Black, Native, disabled, or women. You on the other hand are providing nothing. Show me equal opportunity.

As an aside there are more women than men enrolled in University and still they make up a pitiful minority of Tenure and full time positions. It is an old boys network and this effectively keeps women out.
Again show me anything. What I'm seeing from you is blame minorities for their own lack of progress.


----------



## mrjimmy (Nov 8, 2003)

martman said:


> Well I'm not your kid and SINC is not my father.


It was meant as a joke. Should I explain it?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> I've now given you stats and you've given squat.
> I could go on and show you how many CEOs are Black, Native, disabled, or women. You on the other hand are providing nothing. Show me equal opportunity.
> 
> As an aside there are more women than men enrolled in University and still they make up a pitiful minority of Tenure and full time positions. It is an old boys network and this effectively keeps women out.
> Again show me anything.


First of all, you keep focussing on outcomes. Good for you, you've given squat. Or, let's use outcome = evidence: most administrative assistants (teachers? nurses?) are women, therefore men have less opportunity. Proof!

There is no reason to assume various jobs should divide up amongst societal gender or racial portions, for starters.

Outcomes are not the same as opportunities. And the "opportunity" barriers are not always what people think they are:
http://www.statcan.ca/english/research/11F0019MIE/11F0019MIE2007295.htm

Simply saying being poor is the problem here would lead to horrid post-secondary policy like in QC (tuitions very low, universities choked for cash, taxes still high) instead of getting at other factors that are statistically associated with being poor.

Just one example of how people generally misread outcomes and overstate a case based on their beliefs.

"It is an old boys network and this effectively keeps women out." Is this another of your facts? I've got a nice anecdotal one: an economics department I was in had trouble hiring female PhDs from the U.S. because so many U.S. universities were paying premiums (ie. discriminating against men) to meet explicit/implicit quotas. Not proof of broad factual conclusions, but more than you've provided with outcomes-analysis.

The evidence does not support broad conclusions (your "facts") unless it is misinterpreted (over interpreted).


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

> Clearly, you know nothing of "today's parents"--have you learned nothing of today's generation? We're over-worked, see less of our families, both parents work long hours, and to top it off we have old blowhards yammering about how perfect life was back in "the day" and how "today's parents" want it all on a silver platter.


I think this is really situational. I work 8am - 4:30pm, seldom put in more then 10 minutes of OT a day. My wife runs a dayhome so that she can stay home and look after our son.

We stayed in our first home when many others moved up and have consistently purchased small used cars. We're doing pretty well with number 2 on the way.

Perhaps we are outside of the trend, but life is pretty good.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> First of all, you keep focussing on outcomes. Good for you, you've given squat. Or, let's use outcome = evidence: most administrative assistants (teachers? nurses?) are women, therefore men have less opportunity. Proof!
> 
> There is no reason to assume various jobs should divide up amongst societal gender or racial portions, for starters.
> 
> ...


In your paradigm there are more males trying for university jobs than women. This is simply not the case. I'll add more women attend university then men right now. Yes you can name a few professions where women get the advantage but this is rare and you know it. Also these professions tend to be underpaid to start with. You ignore that it takes women longer to get promotions than men . In fact you ignore a whole host of discrimination and blame the victims. If opportunities were "equal" there wouldn't be as much disparity. And yes the old boys network is a fact.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> In your paradigm there are more males trying for university jobs than women. This is simply not the case. I'll add more women attend university then men right now. Yes you can name a few professions where women get the advantage but this is rare and you know it. Also these professions tend to be underpaid to start with. You ignore that it takes women longer to get promotions than men . In fact you ignore a whole host of discrimination and blame the victims. If opportunities were "equal" there would be as much disparity. And yes the old boys network is a fact.


Thank you for telling me my paradigm and assuming what I'm ignoring. You are, of course, wrong. Were these your "facts" too? 

Outcomes are an indicator for more research, not evidence. For example, years ago I did a research paper on explaining income using inputs such as gender, experience, education (some detail here, maybe 5 or so post-secondary specialisation categories) and other factors. There was no gender coefficient (not statistically different from 0, slightly positive or negative depending on the model). Excluding the post-secondary observations, there was evidence of one.

You then assert, "If opportunities were "equal" there would be as much disparity." That's an assumption, not a fact (my assumption being that there is a missing "not"; I could be wrong). 

You also assert that I blame the victims. Not true, and it's not about blame. You've read that into it. There are many factors, including parents and personal choices (no that's not my whole list, unless you want to assume that for me). For example, not everybody just chooses to chase money and promotions, and there is no reason to assume its statistically the same across gender and race. It may be, but a basic thing like child-birth and family choices creates real experience gaps in a statistically significant number of families. Some choose that, some don't. I think Pat. leave is a great thing. Fathers didn't have equal opportunity for it before, but with it I would not assume equal outcomes across major attributes.

In short, you continue to claim all sorts of things (including things about me) without basis other than belief and misinterpreted evidence.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I added this after you wrote your comment so I am cutting it out and pasting it here then I will answer to what you wrote:
The part that is the must infuriating about the equal opportunity argument is that people born to rich families are born already having made it. This is not equal unless you are a fan of Orwell: "all animals are created equal but some are more equal than others" What I am hearing from you is "discrimination in employment and education doesn't exist."


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> Outcomes are an indicator for more research, not evidence. For example, years ago I did a research paper on explaining income using inputs such as gender, experience, education (some detail here, maybe 5 or so post-secondary specialisation categories) and other factors. There was no gender coefficient (not statistically different from 0, slightly positive or negative depending on the model). Excluding the post-secondary observations, there was evidence of one.


What I'm getting from this almost completely unintelligible paragraph is you think choice is THE reason. Yes choice obviously plays a role but it is equally obvious that gender and racial (etc) discrimination also plays a role. Note the case above of the rich person already having made it. Note the native person who had sh*ty access to education to begin with. Opportunities are not equal just ask any former MD taxi cab driver in Toronto.


----------



## zoziw (Jul 7, 2006)

JumboJones said:


> I can only go on what I have seen, I grew up in Gov't housing and saw many people just living off the system and their children learning to do the same. I don't think that people "deserve" this, but at the same time I don't see them doing anything about it, except coming to the gov't with cap in hand. We all have the same oportunities to become what we want in life, that is what is great about this Country, but don't expect it to come for free or with no work.


I won't dispute that there are people who choose to live off the system, however, my own experience with the poor and underprivledged was initially quite an eyeopener.

I was shocked at the varying degrees of mental illness within our poor and homeless populations, people who fell through the cracks of our "social safety net" who, if we are going to be both honest and practical about it, will probably never turn their situation around.

Of course, there are a whole host of other reasons why people find themselves in these situations, but before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, we need to put some kind of context around the problem.

To pretend that all people have the same opportunities, or even that they have the same protections under the law ($$$) is something I have a hard time believing.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

zoziw said:


> To pretend that all people have the same opportunities, or even that they have the same protections under the law ($$$) is something I have a hard time believing.


:clap: :clap: :clap:


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> The part that is the must infuriating about the equal opportunity argument is that people born to rich families are born already having made it.
> ...................
> "discrimination in employment and education doesn't exist."


For most employment, do you think being born into wealth increases the outcomes' success (in and of itself) or things statistically correlated with it (education, dietary habits, many other things)? There's a big difference and it can be seen when digging beneath a superficial look at outcomes. It also makes a big difference for public policy. Things like health care, child care and public education become the focus instead of, say, lower tuition (to go back to my other example). This is because, for this example, it isn't the money in and of itself that dominates, but what is often correlated with it.

And this is just looking at a parents' finances as the starting marker for "opportunity". It gets much more complicated.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> you think choice is THE reason.


No, you keep erroneously attaching things like that to me. 

"There are many factors, including parents and personal choices (no that's not my whole list, unless you want to assume that for me)."

Does that sound like what you said? I understand it was editted after first draft, but I'm pretty sure my original said "many factors".


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> For most employment, do you think being born into wealth increases the outcomes' success (in and of itself)


Yes I do. I think if you have the connections you will use them. If you are born into wealth you are more likely to know the right people. "Nepotism is what gets good jobs not good resumes." "It's who you know." These are not just cliches.

I'll add that if you are rich you have already "made it". People born to rich families are often never in need of a job. This is not equal opportunity.


martman said:


> Note the case above of the rich person already having made it. Note the native person who had sh*ty access to education to begin with. Opportunities are not equal just ask any former MD taxi cab driver in Toronto.


 And none of us have gone in to any detail about the black community.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> Yes I do. I think if you have the connections you will use them. If you are born into wealth you are more likely to know the right people. Nepotism is what gets good jobs not good resumes. "It's who you know." These are not just cliches.


I guess I need to know if you're just talking about the ultra-wealthy (born into many millions or more..."independently wealthy") or just, say, top 20%. [Edit: saw your change and you seem to be talking about the ultra-wealthy]

Aside from the ultra-wealthy, big starting advantages (not race and gender) and choices people make take them quite far. Being in an educated middle-class family, for example, is a big factor if I recall correctly (the factors in the statscan link were not new and are a good place to start thinking about this). And, if you're focussing on salary, choosing a profession (law, doctor etc.), business or engineering result in higher incomes on average. 

This is why the outcome analysis leads to all sorts of wrong conclusions: it misses where the dominant causality is, and presumes it upon what is believed to be the "problem". Thus the need for a more in-depth look than a superficial outcome.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> And, if you're focussing on salary, choosing a profession (law, doctor etc.), business or engineering result in higher incomes on average.


This is all fine but you are neglecting the fact that within these professions women, blacks, and the disabled get paid less than their white, temporarily abled, male counterparts. (often about $0.70 to the dollar)

Of course you keep accusing me of only taking about outcome when I have talked about issues of education access and access to employment. When these factors are included the issue of outcome becomes predetermined. Not only that, you brushed aside the Native Canadian issue with one sentence like their lack of equal opportunity isn't relevant. I am waiting for you to say that there is no opportunity disparity between the black community and the white community as well.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> This is a myth and you know it. Women do not have the same opportunities as men. Blacks do not have the same opportunities as whites. Immigrants do not have the same opportunities as non immigrants. Native Canadians do not have the same opportunities as non natives. The poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich. In fact this assertion is the single biggest lie promoted in our society. You come off sounding like a spoiled privileged white man.


This is a two way street my friend, there are several women dominated fields out there, should we cut them down and add some men in there to make you happy, not everything is going to be equal, split down the middle. 

Immigrants choose to come to this country, they can't expect to have evereything handed to them as soon as they get here. There is no reason why they can't get as far as the "white man" I know several successful immigrants, but they worked to get there.

I can't believe you even suggested that Natives don't have the same opportunities, I would love to have free post-secondary education and the tax breaks they enjoy, maybe we should take those away so they are more equal to the "white man".

So what if people are born into a rich family, it's the same as being born into a poor family, it's what you do with your life that matters. That poor person can equally make it big or help future generations of their family make it big, as the rich person can hit rock bottom.

You wouldn't happen to be one of those recent grads that came out of university expecting to make $100K a year without paying your dues are you?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> This is all fine but you are neglecting the fact that within these professions women, blacks, and the disabled get paid less than their white, temporarily abled, male counterparts. (often about $0.70 to the dollar)
> 
> Of course you keep accusing me of only taking about outcome when I have talked about issues of education access and access to employment. When these factors are included the issue of outcome becomes predetermined. Not only that, you brushed aside the Native Canadian issue with one sentence like their lack of equal opportunity isn't relevant. I am waiting for you to say that there is no opportunity disparity between the black community and the white community as well.


"As for Native Canadians, that's a whole other series of issues."

You: "you brushed aside the Native Canadian issue with one sentence like their lack of equal opportunity isn't relevant."

Typical for you today. I was referring to the deep complexity (history, geography, current programs access to them, urban vs rural etc.) Obviously you could assume I brushed it aside. Oh well. You seem more interested in strawmen and righteous indignation today.

When you look in depth you see that other factors are quite dominant; when you don't just look at the "0.70", for example (I'm going to use a lot of for examples to be more explicit that they are just examples). 

As for racial dividing lines, it depends on the profession and the starting point, amongst other factors including possible discrimination (not everywhere for everyone). Again, this is where policy can be really useless. Should a policy favour all, for example, black families, or target based upon socio-economic circumstances (in which you'll find over-representation from many races, for example)? Looking at the end will give you the wrong policy.

But hey, if you don't want to think about it, then don't. Maybe you're so busy thinking about this that you don't have much left for your posts. Or maybe you've got beliefs that may or may not be accurate (especially as blanket statements of everything) that you can't handle being challenged. Or maybe something else. I don't know. 

As for your challenge: what is the "black community" and what is the "white community" to you? Consider how those lines may be drawn across socio-economic circumstances and skills sets (for example, there are many other attributes) and maybe you'll realise how grossly over-simplified your earlier statements were. Of course, you can still always tell me what I am thinking instead. Maybe you think it makes your argument seem stronger. Again, I don't know.

As for the outcomes being pre-determined, that's an overstatement, but I assume you didn't mean 100%, just strongly influenced. 

Another thing to think about: tall people are more successful. Causality? It can happen many ways, but that would require a little complexity.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> This is a two way street my friend, there are several women dominated fields out there, should we cut them down and add some men in there to make you happy, not everything is going to be equal, split down the middle.


This is a great idea. Start with the male dominated professions first then we can wory about getting fair pay for male nurses (something I strongly believe in).


JumboJones said:


> Immigrants choose to come to this country, they can't expect to have evereything handed to them as soon as they get here.


Recognition of education EARNED is NOT "having everything handed to them" on a silver platter. 



JumboJones said:


> I can't believe you even suggested that Natives don't have the same opportunities, I would love to have free post-secondary education and the tax breaks they enjoy, maybe we should take those away so they are more equal to the "white man".


Excellent we'll move you to the Kashechewan reserve where you can trade their conditions for your "free" post secondary education. Frankly I find this line of argument offensive.



JumboJones said:


> So what if people are born into a rich family, it's the same as being born into a poor family, it's what you do with your life that matters. That poor person can equally make it big or help future generations of their family make it big, as the rich person can hit rock bottom.


We are talking opportunities here. The chances of a rich person hitting rock bottom are far less than a poor person getting rich.



JumboJones said:


> You wouldn't happen to be one of those recent grads that came out of university expecting to make $100K a year without paying your dues are you?


Nope not even close. I'm a high school drop out.Try again.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> As for your challenge: what is the "black community" and what is the "white community" to you? Consider how those lines may be drawn across socio-economic circumstances and skills sets (for example, there are many other attributes) and maybe you'll realise how grossly over-simplified your earlier statements were.


The disparity in these skill sets are at least partially due to the inequality of opportunities to begin with. You keep telling me you can't not look at the root causes and I keep telling you it is a vicious circle. The outcomes are influenced by the root causes and the root causes are influenced by the previous outcomes. In the end opportunity is not equal.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

We could try a thought exercise, at the risk of being accused of various things:
Which kid has more opportunity to do what they want:
"Minority" (choose whatever you want) modest income family, attentive parents with a strong educational background. 

White male, low-income family with no time or inclination for the kid.

Not so clear.  Make the former tall and good-looking (but not "model" good-looking) and the latter ugly (but not too much). Now what? Looking at broad outcome measures (a large groups' income ratio, for example) will lead to bad government policy. Looking at the real roots leads to better.

Now make up a hypothetical situation where both are "identical" in every way but race. The opportunity difference is materially different now, right? Not necessarily. We could discuss why this is or is not the case. Or we could just be indignant. Third option: TV time. 

[Edit: Didn't see your post above, not sure if added anything new. Talk to you later.]


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> We could try a thought exercise, at the risk of being accused of various things:
> Which kid has more opportunity to do what they want:
> "Minority" (choose whatever you want) modest income family, attentive parents with a strong educational background.
> 
> ...


Your response seems to re-enforce my argument in unintended ways. You end up saying that opportunities are not equal you just don't like my reasons for this.
Of course issues like appearance and hight are well documented as factors and show that even these issues cause an unequal opportunity. Pretty people do get more jobs and more pay and more promotions. This doesn't disprove my argument on the contrary. I agree with you when you say that policy needs to be carefully looked at and that my examples are too simplistic to be used as the model. The purpose of these examples was to illustrate a point. This is a message board not a 500 page thesis.

In the end I think money is the biggest factor. Money can often overcome most other disparities especially race. Just look at Condoleeza Rice. Her children will never want for anything I guarantee it.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> Nope not even close. I'm a high school drop out.Try again.


Great so are you proud of where you are because you worked hard at it, or are you bitter because society doesn't hand out as much as you think they should to people that waste our free education system?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

JumboJones said:


> Great so are you proud of where you are because you worked hard at it, or are you bitter because society doesn't hand out as much as you think they should to people that waste our free education system?


I'm proud of who I am. I think that the rich in society take more benefit then they give back. I think they operate from a sense of entitlement that doesn't take into account the hard work that poor people perform with little recompense compared with how hard the rich work. I think that society is skewed in many ways and that opportunities are anything BUT equal. I think that many people are selfish and should learn to share. I think many of the current problems in this society are caused by this. I also think your insinuation is offensive and a fallacy. 
This is a disjunctive fallacy (false dichotomy). Why is this a disjunctive fallacy? Because you are offering two choices like they are the only options. Guess what? They aren't.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> The disparity in these skill sets are at least partially due to the inequality of opportunities to begin with. You keep telling me you can't not look at the root causes and I keep telling you it is a vicious circle. The outcomes are influenced by the root causes and the root causes are influenced by the previous outcomes. In the end opportunity is not equal.


Still here. TV is not quite fun yet. 

On this and a direct extension of my other post (we're moving fast now?), look to the dominant causes. They (including the well-known vicious circle argument) are family based (complex, but I don't think I need to get into every detail...maybe I do) for the most part. 

Looking at the broad racial ratios, for example, is moving attention away from known dominant causes where the best progress can be made. It is too often about feelings of "majority" guilt not "what's the best way to help people". It becomes about how "wrong" things are by misinterpretation instead of the most effective way to make things better. It leads to bad policy. Families and people need help out of the circle regardless of their skin, as one attribute example.

Certain communities may have more deeply rooted problems, but broad statements across the nation and all other attributes (I've mentioned a few...I don't need to provide a complete list every time, do I?  ) are not true. As I mentioned, the many issues regarding Natives are another matter. That's not brushing it aside. That's acknowledging substantially greater complexity.

And none of this is about outcome evaluations and assumptions like old boys clubs (can exist, countering anti-whitemale practices publicly exist...it depends and does not lend itself to broad statements claimed as fact) and income ratios. It is about each person and each family most of the time. Outcome-type ratios can help with specific program design (e.g. mentors) but if the starting point is such inaccurate interpretation then the end will suffer.


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I largely although not completely agree. I never even mentioned policy. All I did was say that this statement: "every one has the same opportunities in life" is one of the biggest lies in society. I still stand behind this. I agree that current policy is a joke. I agree that policy needs to be better thought out. I'll add that disparities in life aren't always someone's fault. This doesn't make the opportunities any more present.

By the way I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth but merely trying to tell you what I am getting by your statements. I am glad when you clarify your position(s) as this makes understanding work better.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

So now onto opportunities versus barriers (not the right word, but it will work for now). Barriers make achieving something more difficult, but do they represent less opportunity? People have tremendous opportunities to do as they want, but face different barriers. 

An analogy that is emerging in biology is for things like obesity. Some people are genetically predisposed to obesity but that doesn't mean they can't be a healthy weight. It means it is more difficult for them than for others.

I think this may be more where JJ is coming from (please correct me if I'm wrong, JJ). People face different barriers but the majority still have the opportunity. Many programs, poorly designed or not, address barriers or fund opportunities for select groups. 

It is usually the latter that galls people because, as we've discussed, they may face the same or worse barriers but not have the appropriate attributes (race, for example) to get the funding, for example, but are then told not to act so discriminatory when it is them that have been discriminated against. 

That's a big problem with misdiagnosing the outcome/opportunity relationship and placing too much emphasis where it doesn't belong. It's up to voters not to blindly support things that sound good and "equal". Good intentions are not enough.

Then, in the realm of barriers, there is also the sense that government should not be trying to address them all. Looking at height, as an example, there are many factors that aren't what is generally considered political discrimination (self confidence, mammal response to "big" etc.). That's an extreme example, but often "equality" programs just look at the outcome (tall people make more) and try to force a correction (average-height and short quotas). 

Quite a mess, all based upon the misguided notion of matching the general populations' distribution along certain attributes (gender, race etc.) to a final outcome in, say, an office.

I lean towards universal (but not monopolistic) programs to make it easier for people to do what they want. But some things just are (e.g. no universal cosmetic surgery aside from repairing unnatural damage) and people still have to make choices. And, yes, parents' choices will matter too. That's part of the responsibility of being a parent...government won't fix everything. Opportunity: government also won't take it all away. 

On choice, people, from excellent starting points (low barriers) or not, make many that have fairly well-known implications, yet some whine anyway that they don't have as much as some guy who made a different choice. To be clear, this is an example and I'm not talking about everybody or brushing aside other matters (any more disclaimers needed?). Let's use a hopefully uncontroversial example. 

If you've had a nice easy middle-class life, you go to university, and major in something with known minimal earning power but you like it (or you are besotted with someone in the class, or whatever), that will make a difference for likely earnings, and it should. Different people will place earnings power (skills that are expected to be of great financial value to others) at different priorities because we're all different. That's life. 

From my experience, most (note: most) people get to where they are primarily through their choices. I support a good social safety net to help reduce barriers and give people second chances, but one's decisions do and must matter (a wide range of opinion on how much they should matter). Otherwise, what's the point of free will?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> So now onto opportunities versus barriers (not the right word, but it will work for now). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Otherwise, what's the point of free will?


I respect you opinion but two things come to mind.
1) This has nothing really to do with my initial statement and is a whole other discussion.
2) What you seem to be saying in many many words is you are against affirmative action. If I am correct then I have to strongly disagree with you. The example I have to point out is JJ saying Natives have free university and "tax advantages" and this is unfair. In doing this he completely ignores the historical reasons for the tax difference and the education. He also completely ignores the current situation on the reserve I mentioned and most other in this country. He also is clearly against universal child care. Actually I am too but the only way to get it for those who need it is to give it to everyone or people like JJ will complain despite the fact that getting people into the workforce will benefit us all in the long run through more taxes to the gov'ts. People like JJ think that because they weren't able to receive some kind of help no one should and as I point out the logical outcome of this is no medicare and no vote for blacks and women.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

martman said:


> The example I have to point out is JJ saying Natives have free university and "tax advantages" and this is unfair. In doing this he completely ignores the historical reasons for the tax difference and the education. He also completely ignores the current situation on the reserve I mentioned and most other in this country.


What I was pointing out is that different people have different advantages, and there is no way to make everything equal. They are born into their race and they are entitled by law to have those advantages, why is that any different than someone has been born into wealth. If we take one persons advatage away why not the rest?



martman said:


> He also is clearly against universal child care. Actually I am too but the only way to get it for those who need it is to give it to everyone or people like JJ will complain despite the fact that getting people into the workforce will benefit us all in the long run through more taxes to the gov'ts.


I believe in universal childcare, but I think it should be more of a Provicial gov't matter than Federal. And remember not all publically funded programs are a success. And just because it is publically funded don't think for a second that you won't still be paying to get your kid into daycare, there just may be more spots open.



martman said:


> People like JJ think that because they weren't able to receive some kind of help no one should


I've received a lot of help from the gov't, my mother raised me on a disability pension, I received CPP while in school, I received several student loans and grants. I never said that people shouldn't receive help from the gov't but I do think there should be priorities set on what the gov't helps out with and Federally I don't believe childcare should be one of them. And until our healthcare system gets fixed I don't believe it should be a Provicial priority either. We need to concentrate on fixing the programs we have and not start new ones that will be neglected in the near future.



martman said:


> and as I point out the logical outcome of this is no medicare and no vote for blacks and women.


I not sure where you bought this "logical" outcome, but I'd return it real quick. No where did I ever say that we start taking rights away from people and medicare and voting are two different beasts. It is a lot easier for a gov't to give the right to vote/same sex marriage/comb thier hair/or whatever, than it is to start a multi billion dollar social program. As I said before people have the right to childcare, and they have the right to pay for it, whether it is in full now, or in part when/if it ever gets subsidised.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

martman said:


> 1) This has nothing really to do with my initial statement and is a whole other discussion.


It was directly related to what I considered the error in your initial statements. Maybe not what you were trying to say, but what you did say.

The statements cut across all sorts of groups but the problems, while associated in more concentration in groupings (looking at outcomes) are highly dependent on family-circumstances. 

These statements mixed up a bunch of issues and made broad (and innaccurate) generalizations:
"Women do not have the same opportunities as men. Blacks do not have the same opportunities as whites. Immigrants do not have the same opportunities as non immigrants. Native Canadians do not have the same opportunities as non natives. The poor do not have the same opportunities as the rich. In fact this assertion is the single biggest lie promoted in our society. You come off sounding like a spoiled privileged white man."

"The fact is the only people saying opportunities are equal is white men."

It isn't all *insert group*. It is generally specific to circumstances. Glossing over this and looking at broad outcome measures leads to such innaccurate generalisations. What was the "Black Community" and "White Community" you referred to later? Answering that would have also shown the problem. 

Correlation does not mean causation. It is an indication that more information is needed.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MM: Generally speaking, you seem to say things like, "People like JJ think" and other such things that presume someone's opinion/thoughts. While this may be your way of, "merely trying to tell you what I am getting by your statements" it is quite obviously not communicating that by its actual meaning. You may find discussions more productive without such assertions (or the quasi-assertion of insulting questions like, "So you support *insert evil thing*"). Your choice, obviously.


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Getting back to the topic at hand, you would think someone like Dr David Suzuki would be able to handle a little debate on global warming with a radio comentator. But he instead storms off the show, doesn't sound too mature to me, he might has well have sat there with his fingers in his ears humming.

http://www.640toronto.com/john_oakley/john_oakley_audio.cfm?rem=64671&jor=64671#video


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

This movie about people driving off cliffs sucks badly. Can David Suzuki drive off a cliff next? That might spice things up!


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

I don't think that would be very environmentally friendly of him.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Maybe he could just jump off the cliff?


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

Beej said:


> MM: Generally speaking, you seem to say things like, "People like JJ think" and other such things that presume someone's opinion/thoughts. While this may be your way of, "merely trying to tell you what I am getting by your statements" it is quite obviously not communicating that by its actual meaning. You may find discussions more productive without such assertions (or the quasi-assertion of insulting questions like, "So you support *insert evil thing*"). Your choice, obviously.


I can only go by what JJ said. And he said:


JumboJones said:


> :---(
> What about the millions of children that were counting on it years ago? I'm sorry if you can't afford to have children...





JumboJones said:


> We aren't entitled to national daycare.





JumboJones said:


> You're really stretching now if you are compairing healthcare and childcare, lame.





JumboJones said:


> Why anyone would want to hand off their child before kindergarten is beyond me, you wouldn't want your child to bond with you.
> 
> There is a difference between equal rights and the right to publicly funded childcare. What next the right to publicly funded maid service? How about chauffeur service? Auto repair? How about our poor pets, lets add pet healthcare too.





JumboJones said:


> Gimmie, gimmie, gimmie. More, more, more. You think this is the first generation that has had to work double shifts and late nights? I'm 28, I'd like to think I'm part of today's generation, and I feel proud of where I am as a result of hard work. I have 3 brothers and they are all still waiting for someone to come save them, they all feel this entitlement like they should be where I am without having to work for it. It's BS, there are things people can do and sacrifices they can make to survive, they just don't feel they should have to.





JumboJones said:


> You sound pretty entitled, ever try working hard for something?
> 
> It is a nice reward, but not when others feel they should be sharing that pie with you, without having worked for their own.





JumboJones said:


> This is a two way street my friend, there are several women dominated fields out there, should we cut them down and add some men in there to make you happy, not everything is going to be equal, split down the middle.
> 
> Immigrants choose to come to this country, they can't expect to have evereything handed to them as soon as they get here. There is no reason why they can't get as far as the "white man" I know several successful immigrants, but they worked to get there.
> 
> ...





JumboJones said:


> Great so are you proud of where you are because you worked hard at it, or are you bitter because society doesn't hand out as much as you think they should to people that waste our free education system?


I'll add by what he is saying here he is right I shouldn't have accused him of saying that he doesn't think people should get what he didn't . He is saying people shouldn't get what he got. His last post sure come off different. doesn't it?


----------



## JumboJones (Feb 21, 2001)

Right, I'm the "white man" that is trying to keep you down. 

I am all for people getting what I got, the system is there for you to use to get ahead in life, the system by itself WILL NOT get you ahead. Some people expect too much, they want something for nothing and feel everyone else owes them something.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Wahhhhhhh! I want daycare for all the babies I'm about to have but can't afford (and who will contribute to the global warming I weep about as well)!


----------

