|
Canada says no to missile shield: Take that Neocons (pg. 8)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Why shouldn't they? It's not like we're using it for anything! Oh, except maybe for those helicopters that fall out of the sky. :stongue:
And the only thing that makes sense about comparing this whole thing to Iraq is that the U.S. in good conscience asked for our support before taking action. As with many other situations in life, however, simply asking for support does not make said support a prequisite for action.
I think you're scrounging on this one Mark - I haven't seen you present any concrete reasons for this decision other than the casual cynicism about nothing being "free" and about us not having an equal part in it (neither of which really even matter, because at the very least it would be *cheap* and we'd have *some* role to play).
Oh, and to everyone else in this thread - how come you're so quick to say nothing is free when it comes to national defense but you're all about free when it comes to health care, minority rights, homelessness, daycare and the poor and disabled? There's no difference between any of these things, you know - they all cost money. The only difference is who's footing the bill; for the BMD, the Americans are footing it, for the other , WE'RE footing it. |
I'm just replying to other people's comments...the insinuation that having a role, even a small one, actually means anything (when it comes down to it) might be a stretch.
I feel that this entire missle defense thing has been blown out of proportion. It seems to have little "real" consequence to us whether or not we sign on...and seem to be a rare situation where our gov't can really act as it sees fit...or in accordance with public sentement...or for ulterior motives (and those are not necessarily all mutually exclusive).
You say the U.S. gov't "acted in good conscience"...I'm suggesting it may merely have learned from it's disasterous political mistakes (ie. with Iraq) and is just being more tactful. Just because Canada has been asked ahead of time doesn't mean that the end result will change (ie. the U.S. gov't potentially doing as it pleases either way).
They asked for little more than political approval...we declined. Why is that such an issue if our gov't (and Canadians in general) don't agree with the plan? I'm not saying it's without any consequence...but some people make it sound like we're going to get screwed somewhere down the road because of this...and I think they're overestimating this "slap in the face to America", as it's being called by some.
What if signing on improves U.S. relations, but causes tension between us and Europe? other regions? internally? |
|
|
| Spam |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
Maybe it would be good for you. For me, a type 1 diabetic who requires a lot of perscriptions to stay alive, the costs of paying for my own healthcare or private coverage would be astronomical and really hurt my quality of life. It's one thing to bash the social security net because you don't want your tax dollars going to welfare, but for those of us who rely on the public health-care system, your comment is a bit unfair. I can't help the fact that I need the system... it's not my fault. Now you tell me that you think it's better if people like me have to pay our own way?
"Fixed" for some isn't fixed for everyone. Typical NIMBY. |
2 words, Health Insurance.
Cheers. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by DJ_Elyot
Maybe it would be good for you. For me, a type 1 diabetic who requires a lot of perscriptions to stay alive, the costs of paying for my own healthcare or private coverage would be astronomical and really hurt my quality of life. It's one thing to bash the social security net because you don't want your tax dollars going to welfare, but for those of us who rely on the public health-care system, your comment is a bit unfair. I can't help the fact that I need the system... it's not my fault. Now you tell me that you think it's better if people like me have to pay our own way?
"Fixed" for some isn't fixed for everyone. Typical NIMBY. |
How can you even begin to apply the word NIMBY to the privatization of health care?? :rolleyes:
Think about this rationally. If you took all the money you'd spent on tax-based health care and applied it toward private care and insurance, your treatment and supplies would be more than taken care of.
Safety nets by definition don't provide services that would be otherwise unobtainable. Their singular intention is to remove the burden of responsibility from the individual and place it on the collective (which is why it's called collectivism). What's being divided here is not the pie itself, but merely the responsibility for it, which is something that we're all capable of handling on our own. For splitting the pie, there's this thing called insurance, which is VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY.
I can say with the utmost certainty that if you and your family paid taxes similar to U.S. rates and managed finances intelligently (i.e. paying for health insurance), you'd have no trouble getting by with a much BETTER quality of life than you have right now. I've heard of very few lower-middle-class Americans complain about their lifestyles. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the care and technology available to diabetics in the USA is top-class, far better than what we have here. |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
I've heard of very few lower-middle-class Americans complain about their lifestyles. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the care and technology available to diabetics in the USA is top-class, far better than what we have here. |
Well move there then! If you want lower taxes and private healthcare move to the states.
Rather than wishing and trying to ask the italian restaurent to serve chinese food and telling people in the restaurent that noodles are so much better then pasta and that bbq pork is better then veal,why not just go to the chinese food restaurent next door. That way people who like italian food and how the restaurent is run, are able to enjoy thier food and time.
problem solved I will call the moving company and will even donate some boxes
I wish canada had better urban planning and sustainble transport systems but it likely wont so i am going to move to europe. go with the flow not against it
swilly
;) |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
I wish canada had better urban planning and sustainble transport systems but it likely wont so i am going to move to europe. go with the flow not against it
swilly
;) |
What are you talking about? Jane Jacobs and her ilk have dominated for Toronto for 30 years.
Don't you know about the Allen Expressway cancellation?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
What are you talking about? Jane Jacobs and her ilk have dominated for Toronto for 30 years.
Don't you know about the Allen Expressway cancellation?
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: |
hahahah a small step in the right direction. To say that thier ideas have dominated though is a massive overstatment. If that were true then 407 would of been better integrated as a real toronto by pass not a 905 linkage. Moreover, subway expansions to square one and york university would of occured along time. Also segregataed land use planning in the suburbs would of stopped about 20 years ago.
Although toronto is better off then many auto dominated cities such as phoneix and denver. We are not that well off. Also to say that at least we are better then denver is to say " well at least I am not as fat as the fat kid"
I would like to ask do you think that the allen expressway should of been allowed to continue through the city and why?
Also what do you thik the solution to congestion is? Increased highway size perhaps? |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
Well move there then! If you want lower taxes and private healthcare move to the states. |
If only it were that easy. The USA is not quite as lax as Canada when it comes to immigration - especially when the people in question are Canadian.
| quote: | | Rather than wishing and trying to ask the italian restaurent to serve chinese food and telling people in the restaurent that noodles are so much better then pasta and that bbq pork is better then veal,why not just go to the chinese food restaurent next door. That way people who like italian food and how the restaurent is run, are able to enjoy thier food and time. |
What does that have to do with... uh... anything?
| quote: | | I would like to ask do you think that the allen expressway should of been allowed to continue through the city and why? |
Of course, can you come up with any reason why not?
| quote: | | Also what do you thik the solution to congestion is? Increased highway size perhaps? |
- Implement the subway system we were SUPPOSED to have implemented according to the original 1960s plan;
- Get rid of that awful collector/express system on the 401 and make it a proper 7-8 lane highway;
- Build another east/west highway south of the 401 and north of the Gardiner.
Sound expensive? It wouldn't if the LPC had given the City of Toronto the money for development instead of pissing it away on cancelled aircraft projects, sponsorship scandals and the "war on drugs". |
|
|
| swilly |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
If only it were that easy. The USA is not quite as lax as Canada when it comes to immigration - especially when the people in question are Canadian.
[quote]
What does that have to do with... uh... anything? |
It was an anology for people constantly complaining about public health care in this country and the higher then US tax rates. What my point was, as apparently it eluded you, ( although i thought the analogy was quite obvious) is that if you dont like the nation you are living in and hate the socialist nature of canadian society and prefer the US system, then move there. Moving to the US is not that hard ethier. I dont why you would say it is. My brother in law's cousin got a contract with ESRI in california and got a visa in 3 weeks and then moved there. Now some 2 years later he is well in the process of becoming a citizen and pays less taxes the whole deal. So if you want the yank life then move there.
| quote: |
Of course, can you come up with any reason why not? |
sure what about the destruction of china town and the elimination all the pedestrian areas along that corridor. Also the immense consumption of valuable land to be used only for tranport purposes. All one needs to do is look at the excessive amount of land needed to support the 401 in terms of sound barriers off ramps and so forth. All valuable land in large urban environment that could be used more efficiently. as opposed to often just open empty space but not suitable for pedestrian use.
| quote: |
- Get rid of that awful collector/express system on the 401 and make it a proper 7-8 lane highway;
- Build another east/west highway south of the 401 and north of the Gardiner.
|
a 7-8 lane highway are you mental? there would be serious issues in terms of trying to seperate traffic and also addressing traffic accidents or car breakdowns.
Also where the hell would you run another 401 type highway south of the 401 and north of the gardeners? You would destroy any pedestrian amenities in what is one of the only remaining viable and expanding pedestrian cores in the nation (also north america See the doughnut cities of midwestern USA ie detroit).
also when did the government launch a war on drugs? i must of been asleep |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Oh no, think of the poor pedestrians! Somebody call a WAAAAAAAAAmbulance! Ever heard of tunnels and bridges? Montreal has lots of them! If we've got a friggin' underground MALL, I'm sure we can handle a few underground ROADS.
Swilly, your implication is that land should only be used for transport if it's not suitable for pedestrian use because it's inefficient. When you have thousands of vehicles passing through it PER DAY, that argument loses all meaning. What's INEFFICIENT is having more than half of Canada's population living on less than 10% of the total land mass, and continuing to bring in hundreds of thousands of new immigrants and stick them all in that exact same spot.
How many millions of dollars PER DAY in productivity do you think are lost for no reason other than the insane traffic jams during rush hour, which is actually about 11 hours long?
*This* is what we call the NIMBY attitude. And apparently you didn't realize that our government is fighting the same war on drugs that the U.S. government is - holy cow, are you ever out to lunch. Just quit while you're ahead dude. |
|
|
| EvilTree |
| quote: | Originally posted by swilly
It was an anology for people constantly complaining about public health care in this country and the higher then US tax rates. What my point was, as apparently it eluded you, ( although i thought the analogy was quite obvious) is that if you dont like the nation you are living in and hate the socialist nature of canadian society and prefer the US system, then move there. Moving to the US is not that hard ethier. I dont why you would say it is. My brother in law's cousin got a contract with ESRI in california and got a visa in 3 weeks and then moved there. Now some 2 years later he is well in the process of becoming a citizen and pays less taxes the whole deal. So if you want the yank life then move there.
|
Liking less tax is yank life? WTF.
Perhaps all conservatives should move to US, because most of them do want less taxes eh? That somehow makes them less Canadian, eh? :rolleyes: |
|
|
| DJ_Elyot |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
How can you even begin to apply the word NIMBY to the privatization of health care?? :rolleyes:
Think about this rationally. If you took all the money you'd spent on tax-based health care and applied it toward private care and insurance, your treatment and supplies would be more than taken care of.
Safety nets by definition don't provide services that would be otherwise unobtainable. Their singular intention is to remove the burden of responsibility from the individual and place it on the collective (which is why it's called collectivism). What's being divided here is not the pie itself, but merely the responsibility for it, which is something that we're all capable of handling on our own. For splitting the pie, there's this thing called insurance, which is VOLUNTARY and not MANDATORY.
I can say with the utmost certainty that if you and your family paid taxes similar to U.S. rates and managed finances intelligently (i.e. paying for health insurance), you'd have no trouble getting by with a much BETTER quality of life than you have right now. I've heard of very few lower-middle-class Americans complain about their lifestyles. In fact, I'm pretty sure that some of the care and technology available to diabetics in the USA is top-class, far better than what we have here. |
The false premise here is when you've said "What's being divided here is not the pie itself, but merely the responsibility for it, which is something that we're all capable of handling on our own."
We're NOT all capable of handling on our own. That's the whole point here... my healthcare costs are probably 100x more than yours, not because of a lifestyle choice like smoking or drugs, but because of something I can't control at all. Should I have to pay more than you do for my health because of it? I'm not really paying for my own "piece of the pie"... I'm paying more than you are for the same piece because I was born with less of it.
The care and technology available is the same here as it is in the US... in fact the cutting-edge research is taking place in Edmonton. The problem is the cost of the supplies and drugs, much of which comes from an American company. Insurance has a coverage limit... depending on how much I paid for it, I might only end up getting 50% of my stuff paid for, after which I would have exceeded the limit and have to pay for it myself. Either way, there's no way the insurance company is going to willingly lose money by taking on a client with fixed medical expenses and paying out more than they're getting in premiums.
Insurance is to cover unforseen, variable medical expenses. Got some insurance and get diagnosed with cancer? No problem... they'll pay for your treatment (up to whatever your coverage limit is for unforseen expenses). If you live in the states and have no coverage, then you better frigging pray that you don't get sick... otherwise it'll be "pay up or die."
My only hope will be to work for a company that pays for my medical... otherwise, I don't think I'd ever do better in the states than I do in Canada unless I managed to get a pretty huge income. |
|
|
|
|
