Discussion:
What's wrong with this country
(too old to reply)
The Toad
2004-12-01 00:49:16 UTC
Permalink
WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY

Monday's TV news in Ontario featured a story about Marie
Bountrogianni, Ontario's Minister of Immigration, and her
new deal Ottawa on immigrant subsidies.

Considering that Canada has the HIGHEST rate of immigration
in the Western industrialized world and MORE THAN HALF of
this flood of immigrants ends up in Ontario, immigration is
a critical issue for Ontario.

Under Bountrogianni's new deal, Ottawa will give Ontario a
subsidy of about $2000 per immigrant to cover some of the costs
-- a big improvement over the $800 or so Ottawa used to pay.

FRENCH FIRST, THE CANADIAN WAY

Of course, that $2000 per immigrant is still less than what Ottawa
gives Quebec and, unlike Ontario, Quebec gets that money with no
strings attached. "French first" as usual in this country.

JOBS FOR IMMIGRANTS, CANADIANS CAN WAIT

And what were the reasons given for the big subsidy? To pay
social service agencies looking after the immigrants and
especially to help the immigrants find jobs.

So, in spite of Canada's chronically high unemployment rate,
Ottawa is importing a flood of new immigrants to compete with
Canadians for the few jobs available.

And when immigrants can't find a job to take away from a Canadian,
Ottawa goes out of its way to help ensure they do. :-(

BENEFITS OF IMMIGRATION?

Lots of new Liberal voters to be sure -- but what do ordinary,
honest citizens get from Ottawa's immigration policy? Besides our
chronically high unemployment rates and the high taxes necessary
to subsidize Ottawa's beloved immigrants and "refugees"?

We get massive urban sprawl as Toronto and central Ontario struggles
to find room for this foreign invasion. We get clogged highways and
overburdened infrastructure trying to cope with too many people.

We get soaring rates of violent crime which make parts of Toronto seem
like colder versions of Kingston, Jamaica and which has turned the
phrase "Toronto-the-Good" into a bad joke. And that's before the
latest series shooting and knife-wielding incidents on Toronto's
buses.

Is Canada the only country in which the welfare of its own citizens
comes dead last in all its government's planning? :-(


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
========================================
Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
------- ----------------------------
Canada 6.01
New Zealand 4.26
Australia 4.05
USA 3.52
Austria 2.44
UK 2.2
Germany 2.18
Norway 2.09
Italy 2.07
Sweden 1
Spain 0.99
France 0.66
Japan 0
Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
=========================================
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 01:01:44 UTC
Permalink
"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>

>
> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> ========================================
> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
> ------- ----------------------------
> Canada 6.01 Pop 32 Million
> New Zealand 4.26 Pop 5 Million
> Australia 4.05 Pop 23 Million
> USA 3.52 Pop 290 Million
> Austria 2.44 Established "old country"
> UK 2.2 Established "old country"
> Germany 2.18 Established "old country"
> Norway 2.09 Established "old country"> Italy
2.07
> Sweden 1 Established "old country"
> Spain 0.99 Established "old country"
> France 0.66 Established "old country"
> Japan 0 Established "old country"
> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003


Dunno. But I think that with all this space and if we don't look at it over
the long term, we'll just shrink. We're the second largest country in the
world when it comes to size and we have the lowest population of any of the G8.

The average size of a family in Canada is now 3.1 people, when I was born it
was during the baby boom and it was more.

Why do you imply that immigration means all things negative when that isn't the
case most of the time?
Peter White
2004-12-01 01:26:21 UTC
Permalink
Lorne Wheeler wrote:

> "The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>>WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>>
>
>
>>Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
>>========================================
>>Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
>>------- ----------------------------
>>Canada 6.01 Pop 32 Million
>>New Zealand 4.26 Pop 5 Million
>>Australia 4.05 Pop 23 Million
>>USA 3.52 Pop 290 Million
>>Austria 2.44 Established "old country"
>>UK 2.2 Established "old country"
>>Germany 2.18 Established "old country"
>>Norway 2.09 Established "old country"> Italy
>
> 2.07
>
>>Sweden 1 Established "old country"
>>Spain 0.99 Established "old country"
>>France 0.66 Established "old country"
>>Japan 0 Established "old country"
>> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
>
>
>
> Dunno. But I think that with all this space and if we don't look at it over
> the long term, we'll just shrink. We're the second largest country in the
> world when it comes to size and we have the lowest population of any of the G8.
>
> The average size of a family in Canada is now 3.1 people, when I was born it
> was during the baby boom and it was more.
>
> Why do you imply that immigration means all things negative when that isn't the
> case most of the time?
>
>
>
>
>


Stick the CIA (its a slam dunk) handbook up your arse and inform
yourself with facts and ideas


=======================================================================================


US population to 'double by 2100'

Some cities already seem to be at bursting point


The US population will double in the next 100 years, according to
predictions by the US Census Bureau.


From an estimated 275 million people in 2000, the Bureau projects there
will be 571 million in the year 2100.

However, even such a sharp increase might not mean acute overcrowding
because of the large amount of land still underdeveloped for residential
use in the US.

"If you look at the density for the United States, we are not even
coming close to the densities that you see in Europe," said Census
statistician Tammany Mulder.

A population boom might push Americans out to empty lands

Even the projected figure for 2100 would only be about a quarter of the
current population density of Germany or the UK.

Much of the increase in population is expected to come from immigrants.

"The increasing number of potential parents and continued migration from
abroad would be sufficient to add nearly 300 million people during the
next century," Frederick Hollmann, demographer at the Bureau's
population projection branch, said.

Overall, the population will be older - with some 5.3 million over the
age of 100.

The projections also show more women than men in the next century. A
higher percentage of the elderly are expected to be women, who generally
live longer than men.

Ethnic shift

The Bureau predicts that by 2059 whites will form less than 50% of the
total population.

Hispanics are set to continue the demographic rise they began over the
past decade.

They made up 9% of the population in 1990, growing to 12% before the end
of the decade.

By 2005, Hispanics are expected to match and then overtake the black
population, currently at 13%.

By the end of the century, a third of Americans are projected to be
Hispanic.

The bureau also projects the number of Asians and Pacific Islanders will
more than triple in 50 years to 38 million, or 9%, from an estimated 11
million or 4% in 1999.

By 2100, they are projected to reached 75 million, or 13%.

"The Hispanic and Asian populations grow faster as a result of birth
rates and net migration," Mr Mulder said.

"Hispanics generally have higher fertility rates and Asians have high
net migration rates to the US."

For example, a Hispanic woman of child-bearing age had an estimated 2.9
babies in 1999, compared with 1.8 babies for a white woman, and 2.1 for
a black woman
The Toad
2004-12-01 01:53:43 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:01:44 -0500, "Lorne Wheeler"
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
>news:***@4ax.com...
>> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>>
>
>>
>> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
>> ========================================
>> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
>> ------- ----------------------------
>> Canada 6.01 Pop 32 Million
>> New Zealand 4.26 Pop 5 Million
>> Australia 4.05 Pop 23 Million
>> USA 3.52 Pop 290 Million
>> Austria 2.44 Established "old country"
>> UK 2.2 Established "old country"
>> Germany 2.18 Established "old country"
>> Norway 2.09 Established "old country"> Italy
>2.07
>> Sweden 1 Established "old country"
>> Spain 0.99 Established "old country"
>> France 0.66 Established "old country"
>> Japan 0 Established "old country"
>> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
>

Remember these numbers are rates per 1000 of population.

In proportion to populations, Canada is allowing in about 1.7 times as
many immigrants as the USA does, about 3 times as many as Germany or
Norway, and about 9 times as many as France allows in!

With these much higher levels of immigration, we get much greater
disruption of our society than these other countries are suffering.

With rates as high are ours, assimilation of the new immigrants
into traditional Canadian culture is impossible even if it were not
discouraged by Ottawa. Instead the immigrants are like a invading army
displacing traditional Canadians and their culture -- something our
self-seeking politicians are quite happy to see occur.

>
>Dunno. But I think that with all this space and if we don't look at it over
>the long term, we'll just shrink. We're the second largest country in the
>world when it comes to size and we have the lowest population of any of the G8.

We've got lots of muskeg and tundra but most of the places suitable
for habitation have already been settled and in areas like Toronto,
Vancouver, Montreal, etc. are already overpopulated. Is it really
desirable to turn them into carbib copies of Bombay and Shanghai?

>
>The average size of a family in Canada is now 3.1 people, when I was born it
>was during the baby boom and it was more.
>

The same can be said for most of "old Europe" including France and
Germany but they do not feel it is necessary to endure immigration
rates nearly as high as ours. And many Europeans are having second
thoughts about how many immigrants they let in, particularly the
Dutch!


>Why do you imply that immigration means all things negative when that isn't the
>case most of the time?
>

I call'em as I see them. Most of the effects of immigration,
particularly immigration from utterly alien cultures or from crime
ridden societies like Jamaica are extremely negative.

What benefits there are (damn few) from immigration have already been
hyped endlessly by our politicians and their cronies in the
immigration and ethnic lobbies. No need for me to repeat their lies.


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you had a leaking tap and lacked the skills to fix it,
you'd hire a plumber. You would let him into your home for a while
to do the job. But when it was done, you'd pay him and then be
sure to escort him out of your house and lock your door behind him.
Only a complete fool would adopt him into the family, give him
one of the family credit cards, and put him in the family will.
-- But isn't that exactly what Canada is doing every damn time
Ottawa uses immigration to meet a temporary labour shortage?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 02:04:48 UTC
Permalink
"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:01:44 -0500, "Lorne Wheeler"
> <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
> >news:***@4ax.com...
> >> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
> >>
> >
> >>
> >> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> >> ========================================
> >> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
> >> ------- ----------------------------
> >> Canada 6.01 Pop 32 Million
> >> New Zealand 4.26 Pop 5 Million
> >> Australia 4.05 Pop 23 Million
> >> USA 3.52 Pop 290 Million
> >> Austria 2.44 Established "old country"
> >> UK 2.2 Established "old country"
> >> Germany 2.18 Established "old country"
> >> Norway 2.09 Established "old country"> Italy
> >2.07
> >> Sweden 1 Established "old country"
> >> Spain 0.99 Established "old country"
> >> France 0.66 Established "old country"
> >> Japan 0 Established "old country"
> >> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
> >
>
> Remember these numbers are rates per 1000 of population.
>
> In proportion to populations, Canada is allowing in about 1.7 times as
> many immigrants as the USA does, about 3 times as many as Germany or
> Norway, and about 9 times as many as France allows in!
>
> With these much higher levels of immigration, we get much greater
> disruption of our society than these other countries are suffering.
>
> With rates as high are ours, assimilation of the new immigrants
> into traditional Canadian culture is impossible even if it were not
> discouraged by Ottawa. Instead the immigrants are like a invading army
> displacing traditional Canadians and their culture -- something our
> self-seeking politicians are quite happy to see occur.
>
> >
> >Dunno. But I think that with all this space and if we don't look at it
over
> >the long term, we'll just shrink. We're the second largest country in the
> >world when it comes to size and we have the lowest population of any of the
G8.
>
> We've got lots of muskeg and tundra but most of the places suitable
> for habitation have already been settled and in areas like Toronto,
> Vancouver, Montreal, etc. are already overpopulated. Is it really
> desirable to turn them into carbib copies of Bombay and Shanghai?
>
> >
> >The average size of a family in Canada is now 3.1 people, when I was born it
> >was during the baby boom and it was more.
> >
>
> The same can be said for most of "old Europe" including France and
> Germany but they do not feel it is necessary to endure immigration
> rates nearly as high as ours. And many Europeans are having second
> thoughts about how many immigrants they let in, particularly the
> Dutch!
>


Yeah! The pubs in Toronto used to have signs saying "No Dogs, No Jews, No
Irish" back in the 1840's.

Italians were less than useless in the 1950's, according to the established
immigrants from my family, who were Irish (and had ancestors who were
prohibited from entering bars, along with Jews and Dogs).

Keep it going, eh?
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 02:14:08 UTC
Permalink
"Lorne Wheeler" <***@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:***@individual.net...
>
> "The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 20:01:44 -0500, "Lorne Wheeler"
> > <***@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
> > >news:***@4ax.com...
> > >> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
> > >>
> > >
> > >>
> > >> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> > >> ========================================
> > >> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
> > >> ------- ----------------------------
> > >> Canada 6.01 Pop 32 Million
> > >> New Zealand 4.26 Pop 5 Million
> > >> Australia 4.05 Pop 23 Million
> > >> USA 3.52 Pop 290 Million
> > >> Austria 2.44 Established "old country"
> > >> UK 2.2 Established "old country"
> > >> Germany 2.18 Established "old country"
> > >> Norway 2.09 Established "old country"> Italy
> > >2.07
> > >> Sweden 1 Established "old country"
> > >> Spain 0.99 Established "old country"
> > >> France 0.66 Established "old country"
> > >> Japan 0 Established "old country"
> > >> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
> > >
> >
> > Remember these numbers are rates per 1000 of population.
> >
> > In proportion to populations, Canada is allowing in about 1.7 times as
> > many immigrants as the USA does, about 3 times as many as Germany or
> > Norway, and about 9 times as many as France allows in!
> >
> > With these much higher levels of immigration, we get much greater
> > disruption of our society than these other countries are suffering.
> >
> > With rates as high are ours, assimilation of the new immigrants
> > into traditional Canadian culture is impossible even if it were not
> > discouraged by Ottawa. Instead the immigrants are like a invading army
> > displacing traditional Canadians and their culture -- something our
> > self-seeking politicians are quite happy to see occur.
> >
> > >
> > >Dunno. But I think that with all this space and if we don't look at it
> over
> > >the long term, we'll just shrink. We're the second largest country in the
> > >world when it comes to size and we have the lowest population of any of
the
> G8.
> >
> > We've got lots of muskeg and tundra but most of the places suitable
> > for habitation have already been settled and in areas like Toronto,
> > Vancouver, Montreal, etc. are already overpopulated. Is it really
> > desirable to turn them into carbib copies of Bombay and Shanghai?
> >
> > >
> > >The average size of a family in Canada is now 3.1 people, when I was born
it
> > >was during the baby boom and it was more.
> > >
> >
> > The same can be said for most of "old Europe" including France and
> > Germany but they do not feel it is necessary to endure immigration
> > rates nearly as high as ours. And many Europeans are having second
> > thoughts about how many immigrants they let in, particularly the
> > Dutch!
> >
>
>
> Yeah! The pubs in Toronto used to have signs saying "No Dogs, No Jews, No
> Irish" back in the 1840's.
>
> Italians were less than useless in the 1950's, according to the established
> immigrants from my family, who were Irish (and had ancestors who were
> prohibited from entering bars, along with Jews and Dogs).
>
> Keep it going, eh?
>
>

It's simple, just like MLK said to the Americans when they were more into
racism than they are now.

"Judge a person by their character, not by the colour of their skin" Or for
that matter, their nationality.
Ruddell
2004-12-01 04:47:11 UTC
Permalink
In <***@individual.net> Lorne Wheeler wrote:


> It's simple, just like MLK said to the Americans when they were more
> into racism than they are now.
>
> "Judge a person by their character, not by the colour of their skin"
> Or for that matter, their nationality.

Tell that to Karen when it comes to Americans...



--
Cheers

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 04:57:15 UTC
Permalink
"Ruddell" <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote in message
news:20041130224711535-***@news.sasktel.net...
> In <***@individual.net> Lorne Wheeler wrote:
>
>
> > It's simple, just like MLK said to the Americans when they were more
> > into racism than they are now.
> >
> > "Judge a person by their character, not by the colour of their skin"
> > Or for that matter, their nationality.
>
> Tell that to Karen when it comes to Americans...
>
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Dennis


One person does not make a Redneck.


Strange, today CFRB in Toronto played "The Americans", Gordon Sinclair from
1973.

During the dreaded days of 9/11, Brian Sweeney quoted it and said that the guy
that wrote it was a columnist in Idaho or something, not the Canadian writer
Sinclair (who's never been to Idaho).


The story of the commentary had to do with the "sinking" of the US dollar.

I'll always back the USA, or at least 1/2.

Bush's comment about the "happy Canadians who lined the streets and saluted him
with 5 fingers, not 1" reminds me of Bush 41, when he got off Airforce 1 in
Australia and gave them the "reverse peace sign" (it was "The Bird" to them).
Apparently G H W Bush offended a lot of Aussies that day.


My guess is that Dubya doesn't even know that. :)
Ruddell
2004-12-01 19:13:33 UTC
Permalink
In <***@individual.net> Lorne Wheeler wrote:

> One person does not make a Redneck.

Well, one person does not make a country all rednecks.

> Strange, today CFRB in Toronto played "The Americans", Gordon Sinclair
> from 1973.

That should be reposted as it was a rather impressive speech. Something
all Canadians should keep in mind.

> During the dreaded days of 9/11, Brian Sweeney quoted it and said that
> the guy that wrote it was a columnist in Idaho or something, not the
> Canadian writer Sinclair (who's never been to Idaho).

Yeah, we all make mistakes.

> The story of the commentary had to do with the "sinking" of the US
> dollar.
>
> I'll always back the USA, or at least 1/2.

They certainly aren't the evil empire as many make out.

> Bush's comment about the "happy Canadians who lined the streets and
> saluted him with 5 fingers, not 1" reminds me of Bush 41, when he got
> off Airforce 1 in Australia and gave them the "reverse peace sign" (it
> was "The Bird" to them). Apparently G H W Bush offended a lot of
> Aussies that day.
>
>
> My guess is that Dubya doesn't even know that. :)

I have to admit the first time I went to England my wife informed me
about this. But alas, I went up to a bartender and flashed the sign for
two more beers! Luckily she was right behind me and explained that I
was from Canada and didn't know any better but I should have. Also be
careful over there using the word 'poof' ;-)


--
Cheers

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Luke
2004-12-01 04:29:23 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, Lorne Wheeler
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> Yeah! The pubs in Toronto used to have signs saying "No Dogs, No Jews, No
> Irish" back in the 1840's.
>
> Italians were less than useless in the 1950's, according to the established
> immigrants from my family, who were Irish (and had ancestors who were
> prohibited from entering bars, along with Jews and Dogs).
>
> Keep it going, eh?

Not all opposition to the status quo is xenophobia or racism in
disguise. Canada's immigration/refugee policy­it's judicial dept also,
but that's another thread­needs reworking. There is a disconnection
between the mandarins in Ottawa who're allegedly responsible for it's
oversight and the localities­particularly Toronto, Montreal, Calgary(?)
and Vancouver­that must suffer­and pay­for it's shortcomings.

The local costs of integration; for instance, ESL classes; housing;
and, social and medical services for immigrants are onerous for the
major urban centers that invariably are their destination. These
problems are particularly acute in Toronto: As "The Toad" pointed out,
assimilating such large numbers of immigrants is causing social and
fiscal strain.

I marvel at the relative simplicity­and humility­with which Canada
welcomed previous generations of immigrants. Typically, once Guiseppe
or Giorgio (my dad) gained these shores, relatives or associates fed,
housed and helped him find employment. It was expected that you keep
your nose clean. Little help was forthcoming from the Gov't; little
help was expected.

Today, the welcoming committee is less demanding, more generous, and
more expensive.

Luke
The Toad
2004-12-01 09:08:48 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:29:23 -0500, Luke <***@ca.inter.net> wrote:
>
>Not all opposition to the status quo is xenophobia or racism in
>disguise. Canada's immigration/refugee policy­it's judicial dept also,
>but that's another thread­needs reworking. There is a disconnection
>between the mandarins in Ottawa who're allegedly responsible for it's
>oversight and the localities­particularly Toronto, Montreal, Calgary(?)
>and Vancouver­that must suffer­and pay­for it's shortcomings.
>
>The local costs of integration; for instance, ESL classes; housing;
>and, social and medical services for immigrants are onerous for the
>major urban centers that invariably are their destination. These
>problems are particularly acute in Toronto: As "The Toad" pointed out,
>assimilating such large numbers of immigrants is causing social and
>fiscal strain.
>...

EXPERIMENTING WITH CANADIAN LIVES

Without any public discussion -- let alone our consent -- Ottawa
has embarked on a vast social experiment destined to completely
transform Canadian society and the lives of its citizens.

Our immigration rate in relation to our population is higher, by far,
than that of any other Western industrialized nation. Canada's
"refugee" influx alone is comparable to Frances total intake of
immigrants and refugee claimants combined.

Over half of this huge influx ends up in Ontario, mostly in Toronto.

The result is that Toronto is now the "most multicultural" city in the
entire world! And more than half of its current population was born
outside Canada, another unique "distinction" thanks to Ottawa's
immigration policies.

Nor are any of these immigrants expected to assimilate into the
traditional Canadian culture as previous waves of immigrants were
forced to do. Far from it. Ethnic enclaves and hostility to the
traditional Canadian culture is strongly encouraged by Ottawa's
multiculturalism subsidies and preferential treatment of members of
favoured ethnic lobbies.

This is clearly a program designed to replace Canada's two, European
based, fairly homogenous cultures with a hodgepodge of competing
ethnic minorities all warring with each other over the spoils handed
out by our politicians. Just another version of the Balkans, or
Lebanon in the 1970 and 1980s, or Rwanda, or any of a host of
multicultural hell-holes left behind after the collapse of polyglot
empires.

Our country has been hijacked by our politicians and set on the road
to hell in pursuit of a "multicultural paradise" which never has
existed and never can exist in the real world.


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
========================================
Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
------- ----------------------------
Canada 6.01
New Zealand 4.26
Australia 4.05
USA 3.52
Austria 2.44
UK 2.2
Germany 2.18
Norway 2.09
Italy 2.07
Sweden 1
Spain 0.99
France 0.66
Japan 0
Source: CIA World Fact book 2003
=========================================
Luke
2004-12-01 12:02:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, The Toad
<***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote:

> Nor are any of these immigrants expected to assimilate into the
> traditional Canadian culture as previous waves of immigrants were
> forced to do. Far from it. Ethnic enclaves and hostility to the
> traditional Canadian culture is strongly encouraged by Ottawa's
> multiculturalism subsidies and preferential treatment of members of
> favoured ethnic lobbies.

Yes, I consider this aspect of Canada's immigration/refugee policies
especially insidious; it's tantamount to subsidized alienation and
divisiveness. While it is understandable to a degree, it's maddening to
often note in the newcomers, a greater intensity of interest and
passion for the land departed, than the one arrived at.
Multiculturalism encourages this detachment.

Toad, I hesitate to use the term "assimilate" when referring to the
obligation Canadian society should expect of the newly landed: a more
fitting expectation is that he should "contribute". Our culture is not
an unyielding static entity; it's the natural, organic expression of
it's people­the character of which is in constant flux.

An individual isn't absorbed into a culture so much as he engages, and
impacts, it. But, of course, we should be grateful for the opportunity
to pay for the interference in­and distortion of­this process by the
visionaries in Ottawa­pay no mind that the reasons are self serving.

I contend that a Canadian (domestic or imported) is most at home when
participating in, and defining, Canadian culture; not, as our
multicultural policy would have it, when distracted by another rooted
in a land far away.

luke
Tom the canuck
2004-12-01 01:08:52 UTC
Permalink
I think you are overstating the crime wave in toronto, and basing it on
recent media hype. Statistics show that toronto is a very safe city,
compared to all other cities, per capita, in north america.
"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>
> Monday's TV news in Ontario featured a story about Marie
> Bountrogianni, Ontario's Minister of Immigration, and her
> new deal Ottawa on immigrant subsidies.
>
> Considering that Canada has the HIGHEST rate of immigration
> in the Western industrialized world and MORE THAN HALF of
> this flood of immigrants ends up in Ontario, immigration is
> a critical issue for Ontario.
>
> Under Bountrogianni's new deal, Ottawa will give Ontario a
> subsidy of about $2000 per immigrant to cover some of the costs
> -- a big improvement over the $800 or so Ottawa used to pay.
>
> FRENCH FIRST, THE CANADIAN WAY
>
> Of course, that $2000 per immigrant is still less than what Ottawa
> gives Quebec and, unlike Ontario, Quebec gets that money with no
> strings attached. "French first" as usual in this country.
>
> JOBS FOR IMMIGRANTS, CANADIANS CAN WAIT
>
> And what were the reasons given for the big subsidy? To pay
> social service agencies looking after the immigrants and
> especially to help the immigrants find jobs.
>
> So, in spite of Canada's chronically high unemployment rate,
> Ottawa is importing a flood of new immigrants to compete with
> Canadians for the few jobs available.
>
> And when immigrants can't find a job to take away from a Canadian,
> Ottawa goes out of its way to help ensure they do. :-(
>
> BENEFITS OF IMMIGRATION?
>
> Lots of new Liberal voters to be sure -- but what do ordinary,
> honest citizens get from Ottawa's immigration policy? Besides our
> chronically high unemployment rates and the high taxes necessary
> to subsidize Ottawa's beloved immigrants and "refugees"?
>
> We get massive urban sprawl as Toronto and central Ontario struggles
> to find room for this foreign invasion. We get clogged highways and
> overburdened infrastructure trying to cope with too many people.
>
> We get soaring rates of violent crime which make parts of Toronto seem
> like colder versions of Kingston, Jamaica and which has turned the
> phrase "Toronto-the-Good" into a bad joke. And that's before the
> latest series shooting and knife-wielding incidents on Toronto's
> buses.
>
> Is Canada the only country in which the welfare of its own citizens
> comes dead last in all its government's planning? :-(
>
>
> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> ========================================
> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
> ------- ----------------------------
> Canada 6.01
> New Zealand 4.26
> Australia 4.05
> USA 3.52
> Austria 2.44
> UK 2.2
> Germany 2.18
> Norway 2.09
> Italy 2.07
> Sweden 1
> Spain 0.99
> France 0.66
> Japan 0
> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
> =========================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 01:32:53 UTC
Permalink
"Tom the canuck" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:BQ8rd.4568$***@news1.mts.net...
> I think you are overstating the crime wave in toronto, and basing it on
> recent media hype. Statistics show that toronto is a very safe city,
> compared to all other cities, per capita, in north america.


I'd rather be living in Toronto than many cities of the same size elsewhere.

Most of the assholes who hate Toronto like to think that living in an oversized
small town like Calgary, Vancouver or Halifax is less dangerous.

I think that they're all safe compared to LA, NYC and Chicago, not to mention
smaller cities like Philly, Washington, Denver, Baltimore, Dallas, Buffalo and
a continuing endless list.

I get a kick out of the NRA types crying out that Britain's gun homicide rate
is climbing, when they only have around 60 per year.

I laughed when people from Chicago wouldn't come to Toronto during the SAR's
episode, when 44 people in hospitals died. Toronto's homicide rate that year
was around 65, Chicago's was over 600.


People should try harder to understand what they're being fed. Reading Bull
Shit is bad for the health.
The Toad
2004-12-01 02:31:45 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:08:52 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
<***@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>I think you are overstating the crime wave in toronto, and basing it on
>recent media hype. Statistics show that toronto is a very safe city,
>compared to all other cities, per capita, in north america.

Odd but there always seems to be a RECENT violent incident in Toronto.

In the last few days:

Five hoodlums followed a man onto a bus after an argument. One
pulled a pistol and shot the man three times who is in critical
condition. A (presumably) stray shot hit an 11-year old girl in
the head. About 40 people were on the bus at the time. No witness
can be found because this occured in a predominately black area
of Toronto where the gangs control the streets and witnesses end up
dead.

A day later, a black hoodlum gets on a bus and starts threatening
passengers with a knife. Fortunately this one was caught after a
bus driver called in police.


And over the years we've see so many of these extremely violent
incidents perpetrated by blacks or other ethnic gangs that it's hard
to keep track of them all but it seems to be about one a week
nowadays. Driveby shootings in front of schools. Gang wars in which
nobody knows anything until the perp ends up dead. Gunfights break out
in the middle of a thousand people in an after hours club but when the
police arrive nobody saw a thing! Just an ordinary day in
"Toronto-the-Good." :-(

Forty years ago any one of these incidents would be front page news
for days. Now they have become so routine, the tend to get buried in
the middle of the papers and forgotten almost before the victim's
corpse assumes room temperature.

It would be really interesting to go back over the Toronto papers and
compare the number of murders and violent incidents 40 years ago with
what is happening in Toronto today. Also it would be interesting
to compare the degree of outrage expressed papers news report and
editorial responses.

I suspect that one would find such violent crime much more common
today even after one makes allowances for the larger population. I
also suspect that 40 years ago, such knifings or shootings, were
condemend much more vigorously than in todays news reports.


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
----------------------------------------
The toad beneath the harrow knows
Exactly where each tooth-point goes.
The butterfly upon the road
Preaches contentment to that toad.
Rudyard Kipling
----------------------------------------
Predator
2004-12-01 02:33:10 UTC
Permalink
yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers

"The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
news:***@4ax.com...
> WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>
> Monday's TV news in Ontario featured a story about Marie
> Bountrogianni, Ontario's Minister of Immigration, and her
> new deal Ottawa on immigrant subsidies.
>
> Considering that Canada has the HIGHEST rate of immigration
> in the Western industrialized world and MORE THAN HALF of
> this flood of immigrants ends up in Ontario, immigration is
> a critical issue for Ontario.
>
> Under Bountrogianni's new deal, Ottawa will give Ontario a
> subsidy of about $2000 per immigrant to cover some of the costs
> -- a big improvement over the $800 or so Ottawa used to pay.
>
> FRENCH FIRST, THE CANADIAN WAY
>
> Of course, that $2000 per immigrant is still less than what Ottawa
> gives Quebec and, unlike Ontario, Quebec gets that money with no
> strings attached. "French first" as usual in this country.
>
> JOBS FOR IMMIGRANTS, CANADIANS CAN WAIT
>
> And what were the reasons given for the big subsidy? To pay
> social service agencies looking after the immigrants and
> especially to help the immigrants find jobs.
>
> So, in spite of Canada's chronically high unemployment rate,
> Ottawa is importing a flood of new immigrants to compete with
> Canadians for the few jobs available.
>
> And when immigrants can't find a job to take away from a Canadian,
> Ottawa goes out of its way to help ensure they do. :-(
>
> BENEFITS OF IMMIGRATION?
>
> Lots of new Liberal voters to be sure -- but what do ordinary,
> honest citizens get from Ottawa's immigration policy? Besides our
> chronically high unemployment rates and the high taxes necessary
> to subsidize Ottawa's beloved immigrants and "refugees"?
>
> We get massive urban sprawl as Toronto and central Ontario struggles
> to find room for this foreign invasion. We get clogged highways and
> overburdened infrastructure trying to cope with too many people.
>
> We get soaring rates of violent crime which make parts of Toronto seem
> like colder versions of Kingston, Jamaica and which has turned the
> phrase "Toronto-the-Good" into a bad joke. And that's before the
> latest series shooting and knife-wielding incidents on Toronto's
> buses.
>
> Is Canada the only country in which the welfare of its own citizens
> comes dead last in all its government's planning? :-(
>
>
> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> ========================================
> Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
> ------- ----------------------------
> Canada 6.01
> New Zealand 4.26
> Australia 4.05
> USA 3.52
> Austria 2.44
> UK 2.2
> Germany 2.18
> Norway 2.09
> Italy 2.07
> Sweden 1
> Spain 0.99
> France 0.66
> Japan 0
> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
> =========================================
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
The Toad
2004-12-01 03:03:26 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:33:10 -0500, "Predator"
<***@predator.that> wrote:

>yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
>engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers
>

Heck, we already have Canadian-born scientists and engineers working
as security guards and dishwashers. Why shouldn't these unneeded and
unwanted foreigners join them?

Why should immigrants go to the front of the line at the employment
office thanks to "Employment Equity" and "diversity"?

And why the heck did Ottawa let them in when we haven't enough jobs
for our own people?


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you had a leaking tap and lacked the skills to fix it,
you'd hire a plumber. You would let him into your home for a while
to do the job. But when it was done, you'd pay him and then be
sure to escort him out of your house and lock your door behind him.
Only a complete fool would adopt him into the family, give him
one of the family credit cards, and put him in the family will.
-- But isn't that exactly what Canada is doing every damn time
Ottawa uses immigration to meet a temporary labour shortage?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke
2004-12-01 04:56:59 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>, The Toad
<***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:33:10 -0500, "Predator"
> <***@predator.that> wrote:
>
> >yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
> >engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers
> >
>
> Heck, we already have Canadian-born scientists and engineers working
> as security guards and dishwashers. Why shouldn't these unneeded and
> unwanted foreigners join them?
>
> Why should immigrants go to the front of the line at the employment
> office thanks to "Employment Equity" and "diversity"?

Because our gov't knows better. Social engineering is the enlightened
idealogue's imperative: It's a gift to the unwashed masses­you should
be grateful ;-).

>
> And why the heck did Ottawa let them in when we haven't enough jobs
> for our own people?
>

Toad, that's a simplistic reduction.

Q: Why must fruit farmers in Niagara and southern Ontario harvest their
crops with migrant labourers?
A: "Our own people" consider those jobs beneath them.

Local farmers have told me this repeatedly. There are many factors that
contribute to unemployment aside from the quantity of jobs available.
For instance; one's reluctance to move to where the jobs are; benefits
derived from social services; type of employment available; etc.

Luke
The Toad
2004-12-01 08:21:39 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 23:56:59 -0500, Luke <***@ca.inter.net> wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>, The Toad
><***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:33:10 -0500, "Predator"
>> <***@predator.that> wrote:
>>
>> >yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
>> >engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers
>> >
>>
>> Heck, we already have Canadian-born scientists and engineers working
>> as security guards and dishwashers. Why shouldn't these unneeded and
>> unwanted foreigners join them?
>...
>> And why the heck did Ottawa let them in when we haven't enough jobs
>> for our own people?
>>

>Toad, that's a simplistic reduction.
>
>Q: Why must fruit farmers in Niagara and southern Ontario harvest their
>crops with migrant labourers?
>A: "Our own people" consider those jobs beneath them.
>
>Local farmers have told me this repeatedly. There are many factors that
>contribute to unemployment aside from the quantity of jobs available.
>For instance; one's reluctance to move to where the jobs are; benefits
>derived from social services; type of employment available; etc.

Or could it be that the fruit farmers don't try very hard to get
Canadians when the government lets them hire much cheaper foreign
workers from Mexico?

But getting back to my original example, what about all the
Canadian-born engineers and scientists who can't get decent jobs in
Canada because so many of the jobs have already been taken by foreign
immigrants?

I know some of these underemployed people. They may not be working as
security guards or dishwashers but their jobs aren't a whole lot
better in spite of all their education and training.

Does anyone think these graduates would be working for $8 or $9 an
hour doing grunt work if they could get jobs in their fields?

It takes them LONG, LONG time to pay off their student loans when all
they're making is nine bucks an hour. :-(


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
----------------------------------------------------------
TRASHCANISTAN (tra sh CAN is tan) noun,
the nation formerly known as Canada after three decades
of plunder and destruction by corrupt, statist politicians
from the province of Quebec
(see Visigoths/Rome or Carpetbaggers/Southern States
for comparable historical situations)
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Toad
2004-12-01 08:38:14 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 01 Dec 2004 03:21:39 -0500, The Toad
<***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote:
>...
>But getting back to my original example, what about all the
>Canadian-born engineers and scientists who can't get decent jobs in
>Canada because so many of the jobs have already been taken by foreign
>immigrants?
>...

Sorry folks. It's far too late at night.

Although I've used the example of unemployed "engineers and
scientists" often enough, it was "Predator" who introduced them into
this thread.

With friends like Minister of Immigration Sgro and former Minister
Coderre, Canada's university and college graduates have no need of
enemies. :-(


Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
----------------------------------------------------------------
If you had a leaking tap and lacked the skills to fix it,
you'd hire a plumber. You would let him into your home for a while
to do the job. But when it was done, you'd pay him and then be
sure to escort him out of your house and lock your door behind him.
Only a complete fool would adopt him into the family, give him
one of the family credit cards, and put him in the family will.
-- But isn't that exactly what Canada is doing every damn time
Ottawa uses immigration to meet a temporary labour shortage?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Albert
2004-12-01 05:06:12 UTC
Permalink
The Toad wrote:

> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 21:33:10 -0500, "Predator"
> <***@predator.that> wrote:
>
> >yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
> >engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers
> >
>
> Heck, we already have Canadian-born scientists and engineers working
> as security guards and dishwashers.

Yea, but that's just because they don't speak French. Actually I am surprised
that they let them work security without being bilingual.

> Why shouldn't these unneeded and
> unwanted foreigners join them?
>
> Why should immigrants go to the front of the line at the employment
> office thanks to "Employment Equity" and "diversity"?
>
> And why the heck did Ottawa let them in when we haven't enough jobs
> for our own people?
>
> Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> If you had a leaking tap and lacked the skills to fix it,
> you'd hire a plumber. You would let him into your home for a while
> to do the job. But when it was done, you'd pay him and then be
> sure to escort him out of your house and lock your door behind him.
> Only a complete fool would adopt him into the family, give him
> one of the family credit cards, and put him in the family will.
> -- But isn't that exactly what Canada is doing every damn time
> Ottawa uses immigration to meet a temporary labour shortage?
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
t***@nocomment.com
2004-12-01 03:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Predator wrote:

> yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
> engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and dishwashers

Don't blame our immigration. Blame the provincial medical associations.

>
> "The Toad" <***@trashcanistan.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@4ax.com...
>
>>WHAT'S WRONG WITH THIS COUNTRY
>>
>>Monday's TV news in Ontario featured a story about Marie
>>Bountrogianni, Ontario's Minister of Immigration, and her
>>new deal Ottawa on immigrant subsidies.
>>
>>Considering that Canada has the HIGHEST rate of immigration
>>in the Western industrialized world and MORE THAN HALF of
>>this flood of immigrants ends up in Ontario, immigration is
>>a critical issue for Ontario.
>>
>>Under Bountrogianni's new deal, Ottawa will give Ontario a
>>subsidy of about $2000 per immigrant to cover some of the costs
>>-- a big improvement over the $800 or so Ottawa used to pay.
>>
>>FRENCH FIRST, THE CANADIAN WAY
>>
>>Of course, that $2000 per immigrant is still less than what Ottawa
>>gives Quebec and, unlike Ontario, Quebec gets that money with no
>>strings attached. "French first" as usual in this country.
>>
>>JOBS FOR IMMIGRANTS, CANADIANS CAN WAIT
>>
>>And what were the reasons given for the big subsidy? To pay
>>social service agencies looking after the immigrants and
>>especially to help the immigrants find jobs.
>>
>>So, in spite of Canada's chronically high unemployment rate,
>>Ottawa is importing a flood of new immigrants to compete with
>>Canadians for the few jobs available.
>>
>>And when immigrants can't find a job to take away from a Canadian,
>>Ottawa goes out of its way to help ensure they do. :-(
>>
>>BENEFITS OF IMMIGRATION?
>>
>>Lots of new Liberal voters to be sure -- but what do ordinary,
>>honest citizens get from Ottawa's immigration policy? Besides our
>>chronically high unemployment rates and the high taxes necessary
>>to subsidize Ottawa's beloved immigrants and "refugees"?
>>
>>We get massive urban sprawl as Toronto and central Ontario struggles
>>to find room for this foreign invasion. We get clogged highways and
>>overburdened infrastructure trying to cope with too many people.
>>
>>We get soaring rates of violent crime which make parts of Toronto seem
>>like colder versions of Kingston, Jamaica and which has turned the
>>phrase "Toronto-the-Good" into a bad joke. And that's before the
>>latest series shooting and knife-wielding incidents on Toronto's
>>buses.
>>
>>Is Canada the only country in which the welfare of its own citizens
>>comes dead last in all its government's planning? :-(
>>
>>
>>Toad-Beneath-the-Harrow (a.k.a. DB)
>>========================================
>>Country Net Migration Rate/1000 pop.
>>------- ----------------------------
>>Canada 6.01
>>New Zealand 4.26
>>Australia 4.05
>>USA 3.52
>>Austria 2.44
>>UK 2.2
>>Germany 2.18
>>Norway 2.09
>>Italy 2.07
>>Sweden 1
>>Spain 0.99
>>France 0.66
>>Japan 0
>> Source: CIA World Factbook 2003
>>=========================================
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Lorne Wheeler
2004-12-01 03:13:46 UTC
Permalink
<***@nocomment.com> wrote in message news:AuOdnRFCI5XSqzDcRVn-***@rogers.com...
> Predator wrote:
>
> > yes canadian immigration is a joke. We bring in doctors and scientists and
> > engineers from all over the world to work as security guards and
dishwashers
>
> Don't blame our immigration. Blame the provincial medical associations.
>


I'm just pissed off that Pierre Berton is dead. :(
Ruddell
2004-12-01 03:48:58 UTC
Permalink
In <***@individual.net> Lorne Wheeler wrote:

> I'm just pissed off that Pierre Berton is dead. :(

It's a sad day to be sure, but nothing to be pissed off about. Pierre
Berton was and always will be a Canadian Classic...

--
Cheers

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Luke
2004-12-01 04:59:19 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@individual.net>, Lorne Wheeler
<***@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
> I'm just pissed off that Pierre Berton is dead. :(
>

This is the first I've heard of it. CBC.ca has the story.

It's sad to see him go. RIP Pete.
Jack Plant
2004-12-01 18:58:09 UTC
Permalink
...."liberalism"!
Tom the canuck
2004-12-02 02:35:36 UTC
Permalink
Simplistic people who think like this.


"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>
>
> ...."liberalism"!
Jack Plant
2004-12-03 00:00:01 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
<***@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>Simplistic people who think like this.
>
>
>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>>
>>
>> ...."liberalism"!
>
>

Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
Albert
2004-12-03 00:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Jack Plant wrote:

>
> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......

Exactly!! We've lost our identity. Our politicians have saddled the country
with a funny language that 25 million of the 32 million of us, don't want, don't
use, and don't need. (But we do have to pay for it.)

The majority of the bosses in our government are French and they have little
interest in representing, because they do not represent the 25 million people
not in their little clique.

Everything we hear from the federal government is fed to us by some bilingual
frenchmen. If there is a report from our government, the military, the RCMP or
crown corporation nine times in ten it's a bilingual frenchmen speaking on our
behalf.

Shit 78% of Canadians are just not represented by their own government. That's
what's wrong.

How do you expect us to be proud of ourselves when they've made somebody else's
culture and language dominant?
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 01:07:48 UTC
Permalink
so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like some
do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
yours?


"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
> >Simplistic people who think like this.
> >
> >
> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >>
> >>
> >> ...."liberalism"!
> >
> >
>
> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>
Jack Plant
2004-12-03 02:09:05 UTC
Permalink
You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
deserving of a response.

How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.


On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:07:48 -0500, "notritenoteri"
<***@hades.com> wrote:

>so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
>public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
>punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
>chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
>glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
>What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
>bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like some
>do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
>yours?
>
>
>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
>> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Simplistic people who think like this.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...."liberalism"!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
>> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
>> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
>> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>>
>
>
Ruddell
2004-12-03 01:37:00 UTC
Permalink
In <***@news1.on.sympatico.ca> Jack Plant wrote:
> You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
> deserving of a response.
>
> How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.

It comes to him naturally. Just full of himself and it oozes from his
keyboard...


--
Cheers

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 14:18:11 UTC
Permalink
Unlike you who just lies there a thin, slightly lumpy, pool of canine
vomitus spreading slowly across the horizontal surface.
"Ruddell" <ruddell'Elle-Kabong'@canada.com> wrote in message
news:20041202193702169-***@news.sasktel.net...
> In <***@news1.on.sympatico.ca> Jack Plant wrote:
> > You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
> > deserving of a response.
> >
> > How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.
>
> It comes to him naturally. Just full of himself and it oozes from his
> keyboard...
>
>
> --
> Cheers
>
> Dennis
>
> Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
Ruddell
2004-12-03 17:56:41 UTC
Permalink
In <AA_rd.91$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca> notritenoteri wrote:
> Unlike you who just lies there a thin, slightly lumpy, pool of canine
> vomitus spreading slowly across the horizontal surface.


Oh my goodness, Mr. Perfect strikes again...


--
Cheers

Dennis

Remove 'Elle-Kabong' to reply
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 14:15:46 UTC
Permalink
Jack,
just a tiny point you have responded more or less exactly as I figured you
would!

Strange ideas you say? Put your knee pads back onJack you are stumbling
again. All the mentioned punishments were in vogue in England and to some
extent in Canada at some time prior to the 1950s. I believe the lash or
paddle was only removed from the list of available punishments under the
Canadian criminal code sometime in the 1950s. As to transportation to
Alberta, well that never really did happen but good English families used to
send their "lesser" (though perhaps not "undesirable" sons and other
illegitimates) to Alberta by was of punishment. Sort of an exile without
the broad-arrow suits and the pissed-off Maoris. A lot easier to screw over
a drunk Metis.


"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
> deserving of a response.
>
> How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.
>
>
> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:07:48 -0500, "notritenoteri"
> <***@hades.com> wrote:
>
> >so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
> >public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
> >punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
> >chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
> >glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
> >What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
> >bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like
some
> >do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
> >yours?
> >
> >
> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> >> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Simplistic people who think like this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ...."liberalism"!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> >> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> >> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> >> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
> >>
> >
> >
>
Jack Plant
2004-12-03 23:58:24 UTC
Permalink
Take a course somewhere will ya??

You need me to draw a map for you.

Try to remember this....."non"....got it??

Now,..can you say "sequitor"??

Now put them both together,...."non"...and now "sequitor"...

There ya go,..doesn't that feel better now?

On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:15:46 -0500, "notritenoteri"
<***@hades.com> wrote:

>Jack,
>just a tiny point you have responded more or less exactly as I figured you
>would!
>
>Strange ideas you say? Put your knee pads back onJack you are stumbling
>again. All the mentioned punishments were in vogue in England and to some
>extent in Canada at some time prior to the 1950s. I believe the lash or
>paddle was only removed from the list of available punishments under the
>Canadian criminal code sometime in the 1950s. As to transportation to
>Alberta, well that never really did happen but good English families used to
>send their "lesser" (though perhaps not "undesirable" sons and other
>illegitimates) to Alberta by was of punishment. Sort of an exile without
>the broad-arrow suits and the pissed-off Maoris. A lot easier to screw over
>a drunk Metis.
>
>
> "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
>> deserving of a response.
>>
>> How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:07:48 -0500, "notritenoteri"
>> <***@hades.com> wrote:
>>
>> >so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
>> >public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
>> >punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
>> >chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
>> >glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
>> >What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
>> >bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like
>some
>> >do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
>> >yours?
>> >
>> >
>> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
>> >> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Simplistic people who think like this.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> ...."liberalism"!
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
>> >> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
>> >> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
>> >> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
notritenoteri
2004-12-04 01:03:32 UTC
Permalink
jack,
you may draw me a map if you wish in fact you can stick it up your ass too
if it gives you a good good feeling.
Are you trying to be humourous jack? More likely you should be
jack-be-nimble or jack-be-quick or most likely jack-off.

It is correctly spelled non sequitur and translates roughly as "it does
not follow".

Perhaps you should work on being correct first? Then you can go for the
comedy? YOU could purchase a proper dictionary.( I personally recommend the
Shorter Oxford English Dictionary in 2 volumes about $100. If you're to
poor or parsimonious there are references available on the net.

yo'all go fuck yourself now yah hear!!!!!!!!

"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>
> Take a course somewhere will ya??
>
> You need me to draw a map for you.
>
> Try to remember this....."non"....got it??
>
> Now,..can you say "sequitor"??
>
> Now put them both together,...."non"...and now "sequitor"...
>
> There ya go,..doesn't that feel better now?
>
> On Fri, 3 Dec 2004 09:15:46 -0500, "notritenoteri"
> <***@hades.com> wrote:
>
> >Jack,
> >just a tiny point you have responded more or less exactly as I figured
you
> >would!
> >
> >Strange ideas you say? Put your knee pads back onJack you are stumbling
> >again. All the mentioned punishments were in vogue in England and to
some
> >extent in Canada at some time prior to the 1950s. I believe the lash or
> >paddle was only removed from the list of available punishments under the
> >Canadian criminal code sometime in the 1950s. As to transportation to
> >Alberta, well that never really did happen but good English families used
to
> >send their "lesser" (though perhaps not "undesirable" sons and other
> >illegitimates) to Alberta by was of punishment. Sort of an exile without
> >the broad-arrow suits and the pissed-off Maoris. A lot easier to screw
over
> >a drunk Metis.
> >
> >
> > "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> You are an idiot and of course your post is considerably less than
> >> deserving of a response.
> >>
> >> How you come up with these strange ideas I will never understand.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 20:07:48 -0500, "notritenoteri"
> >> <***@hades.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
> >> >public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
> >> >punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
> >> >chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
> >> >glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
> >> >What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have
their
> >> >bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass
like
> >some
> >> >do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same
as
> >> >yours?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> >> >> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Simplistic people who think like this.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> ...."liberalism"!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> >> >> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> >> >> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> >> >> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc.
etc......
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >
> >
>
Tom the canuck
2004-12-03 01:44:51 UTC
Permalink
i totally agree with ya. the word "undesirable" smacks of pretty scary
stuff.

I wish I could have my earlier post as funnier as yours though...




"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
news:C%Ord.68$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
> public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
> punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
> chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
> glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
> What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
> bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like
> some
> do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
> yours?
>
>
> "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
>> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>> >Simplistic people who think like this.
>> >
>> >
>> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> ...."liberalism"!
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
>> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
>> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
>> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>>
>
>
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 14:06:28 UTC
Permalink
You should take a few runs at hairy balls he's simple and will rise to the
bate like a hot fart in a swimming pool. It doesn't matter what you pen,
he doesn't understand it and any reply is pure simian giberish. Terry is
just a waste of space but he's good when you want to clear your verbal
sinuses.
"Tom the canuck" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:iyPrd.153$***@news1.mts.net...
> i totally agree with ya. the word "undesirable" smacks of pretty scary
> stuff.
>
> I wish I could have my earlier post as funnier as yours though...
>
>
>
>
> "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
> news:C%Ord.68$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> > so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
> > public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
> > punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
> > chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
> > glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
> > What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have their
> > bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass like
> > some
> > do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same as
> > yours?
> >
> >
> > "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> > news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> >> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Simplistic people who think like this.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >> >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> ...."liberalism"!
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> >> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> >> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> >> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
> >>
> >
> >
>
>
sunshine
2004-12-03 04:44:29 UTC
Permalink
Good post notritenoteri, but please...don't 'transport' any more
'undesirables' or criminals to Alberta. We have enough already. Mind
you...most of them are in the government, but still we have enough.

sunshine
======
"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
news:C%Ord.68$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
| so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
| public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
| punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
| chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
| glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
| What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have
their
| bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass
like some
| do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same
as
| yours?
|
|
| "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
| news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
| > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
| > <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
| >
| > >Simplistic people who think like this.
| > >
| > >
| > >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
| > >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
| > >>
| > >>
| > >> ...."liberalism"!
| > >
| > >
| >
| > Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
| > criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
| > laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
| > for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc.
etc......
| >
|
|
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 14:42:28 UTC
Permalink
I thought AB went in for round-ups? Sounds like its time again.
I see you folks in your wisdom re-anointed king Ralf as Emporer. Of course
not that Ontario (where I am incarcerated) has anything to be proud of by
the election of Dalton McGivney and his posse.
The stream of strategic and useful legislation that is pouring from the font
of government in Toronto (or is it sewer) is without doubt worthy of the
electorate.
We have prohibited and un-prohibited the use of fresh fish in the
preparation of Sushi. We are all going to have to wear bicycle helmets
while cycling. I'm not sure if this includes helmets for the "the little
guy" in your trousers but if it doesn't its only because the putzes in
Queen's park are unaware of their own anatomy. Next no doubt it will soon
be mandatory knee pads for practitioners of the art of fellatio. After all
we don't want any unnecessary cases of work related injuries do we?
We will no longer be able to smoke in private clubs. This I believe is a
reward to all the good old boys in the legion for whom second hand smoke is
going to take maybe another 30 seconds off their expected lifespan.

I have heard that the Libs are going to pursue deadbeat dads with a vigour
surpassed only by the Office of Homeland Security in its pursuit of
threatening song lyrics. No mention of cost effectiveness. Perhaps they can
surpass NYC where they spent 20 million to get 20 welfare cheats off the
rolls? Of course there is no word of how the govt is preparing to collapse
like an inflated condom in a hot flame, when the doctors start to assault it
for more money.

Someone once said the people get the govt they deserve. I'm a shit but not
this big of a one.


"sunshine" <***@you.orb> wrote in message
news:NaSrd.225195$***@edtnps89...
> Good post notritenoteri, but please...don't 'transport' any more
> 'undesirables' or criminals to Alberta. We have enough already. Mind
> you...most of them are in the government, but still we have enough.
>
> sunshine
> ======
> "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
> news:C%Ord.68$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca...
> | so if we brought back capital punishment, the work house , the stocks,
> | public whippings and transportation ( Alberta maybe?) plus corporal
> | punishment in schools and the redefinition of women and children as
> | chattels, then the world would all be right ( both ways) again in your
> | glistening eyes (more like pee-holes in the snow I suspect)?
> | What the fuck is an undesirable? Is that someone who doesn't have
> their
> | bigoted, jingoistic,xenophobic white trailer trash head up his ass
> like some
> | do? Or is it someone whose limited mental processes are not the same
> as
> | yours?
> |
> |
> | "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> | news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> | > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> | > <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> | >
> | > >Simplistic people who think like this.
> | > >
> | > >
> | > >"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> | > >news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> | > >>
> | > >>
> | > >> ...."liberalism"!
> | > >
> | > >
> | >
> | > Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> | > criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> | > laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> | > for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc.
> etc......
> | >
> |
> |
>
>
sneakysneak
2004-12-04 05:14:32 UTC
Permalink
"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message news:<lX_rd.95$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>I thought AB went in for round-ups? Sounds like its time again.
>I see you folks in your wisdom re-anointed king Ralf as Emporer. Of course
>not that Ontario (where I am incarcerated) has anything to be proud of by
>the election of Dalton McGivney and his posse.
>The stream of strategic and useful legislation that is pouring from the font
>of government in Toronto (or is it sewer) is without doubt worthy of the
>electorate.
>We have prohibited and un-prohibited the use of fresh fish in the
>preparation of Sushi. We are all going to have to wear bicycle helmets
>while cycling. I'm not sure if this includes helmets for the "the little
>guy" in your trousers but if it doesn't its only because the putzes in
>Queen's park are unaware of their own anatomy. Next no doubt it will soon
>be mandatory knee pads for practitioners of the art of fellatio. After all
>we don't want any unnecessary cases of work related injuries do we?
>We will no longer be able to smoke in private clubs. This I believe is a
>reward to all the good old boys in the legion for whom second hand smoke is
>going to take maybe another 30 seconds off their expected lifespan.
>
>I have heard that the Libs are going to pursue deadbeat dads with a vigour
>surpassed only by the Office of Homeland Security in its pursuit of
>threatening song lyrics. No mention of cost effectiveness. Perhaps they can
>surpass NYC where they spent 20 million to get 20 welfare cheats off the
>rolls? Of course there is no word of how the govt is preparing to collapse
>like an inflated condom in a hot flame, when the doctors start to assault it
>for more money.
>
>Someone once said the people get the govt they deserve. I'm a shit but not
>this big of a one.

Honestly, neither of you should complain since the NDP was not elected
in either province. The Liberals, for all their faults, are probably
a more suitable alternative to the Conservative voters as a second
choice than the NDP. Alberta would not likely be as prosperous under
a Liberal or NDP administration. As for Ontario, why would you want
another NDP provincial government?, especially what happened there
last time, not to mention what their track record is in places like
British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that is mostly abysmal,
with the possible exception being the Roy Romanow NDP in Saskatchewan,
because they actually ran balanced budgets. If the Tories go down to
defeat in Alberta at some point in the future, the next likely party to
govern will be the Alberta Alliance Party, even though they have only one
seat now, unless the Liberals can make Albertans forget about Chretien
and Trudeau.
notritenoteri
2004-12-04 14:11:47 UTC
Permalink
Spare me the NDP snivel. The Last NDP govt in Ontario was no better or worse
that either its Liberal predecessors or its PC successors. Jesus christ and
all the angels couldn't have made a difference when the Rae govt was
elected. Its very amusing how critics of any political party always blame
(insert name of party) for whatever ails the country or region concerned.
What is the magic of balanced budgets? Give me a set of books and an couple
of accounts and I can have the books any way you want them . Why do people
in their own personal lives seem to have no difficult in bleeding through
both nostrils to credit card and mortgage companies and on the other hand
thing that their governments should live a much more balanced life? I'll
bet you don't pay cash for anything.
You may well be correct about the wackos leading the wackos at some point in
time. Sounds like a match ordained in heaven, right in line with the
thinking of stockwell day and similar .


"sneakysneak" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
news:<lX_rd.95$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> >I thought AB went in for round-ups? Sounds like its time again.
> >I see you folks in your wisdom re-anointed king Ralf as Emporer. Of
course
> >not that Ontario (where I am incarcerated) has anything to be proud of by
> >the election of Dalton McGivney and his posse.
> >The stream of strategic and useful legislation that is pouring from the
font
> >of government in Toronto (or is it sewer) is without doubt worthy of the
> >electorate.
> >We have prohibited and un-prohibited the use of fresh fish in the
> >preparation of Sushi. We are all going to have to wear bicycle helmets
> >while cycling. I'm not sure if this includes helmets for the "the little
> >guy" in your trousers but if it doesn't its only because the putzes in
> >Queen's park are unaware of their own anatomy. Next no doubt it will
soon
> >be mandatory knee pads for practitioners of the art of fellatio. After
all
> >we don't want any unnecessary cases of work related injuries do we?
> >We will no longer be able to smoke in private clubs. This I believe is a
> >reward to all the good old boys in the legion for whom second hand smoke
is
> >going to take maybe another 30 seconds off their expected lifespan.
> >
> >I have heard that the Libs are going to pursue deadbeat dads with a
vigour
> >surpassed only by the Office of Homeland Security in its pursuit of
> >threatening song lyrics. No mention of cost effectiveness. Perhaps they
can
> >surpass NYC where they spent 20 million to get 20 welfare cheats off the
> >rolls? Of course there is no word of how the govt is preparing to
collapse
> >like an inflated condom in a hot flame, when the doctors start to assault
it
> >for more money.
> >
> >Someone once said the people get the govt they deserve. I'm a shit but
not
> >this big of a one.
>
> Honestly, neither of you should complain since the NDP was not elected
> in either province. The Liberals, for all their faults, are probably
> a more suitable alternative to the Conservative voters as a second
> choice than the NDP. Alberta would not likely be as prosperous under
> a Liberal or NDP administration. As for Ontario, why would you want
> another NDP provincial government?, especially what happened there
> last time, not to mention what their track record is in places like
> British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, that is mostly abysmal,
> with the possible exception being the Roy Romanow NDP in Saskatchewan,
> because they actually ran balanced budgets. If the Tories go down to
> defeat in Alberta at some point in the future, the next likely party to
> govern will be the Alberta Alliance Party, even though they have only one
> seat now, unless the Liberals can make Albertans forget about Chretien
> and Trudeau.
sneakysneak
2004-12-04 22:11:43 UTC
Permalink
"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message news:<zAjsd.199$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>Spare me the NDP snivel. The Last NDP govt in Ontario was no better or worse
>that either its Liberal predecessors or its PC successors. Jesus christ and
>all the angels couldn't have made a difference when the Rae govt was
>elected. Its very amusing how critics of any political party always blame
>(insert name of party) for whatever ails the country or region concerned.
>What is the magic of balanced budgets? Give me a set of books and an couple
>of accounts and I can have the books any way you want them . Why do people
>in their own personal lives seem to have no difficult in bleeding through
>both nostrils to credit card and mortgage companies and on the other hand
>thing that their governments should live a much more balanced life? I'll
>bet you don't pay cash for anything.
>You may well be correct about the wackos leading the wackos at some point
>in time. Sounds like a match ordained in heaven, right in line with the
>thinking of stockwell day and similar .

I pay cash for most everything. I don't have any credit card debt, or
any other kind of debt what to speak of at the current time, so I must
be one of the lucky ones. You see I'm not of the materialistic Baby
Boom generation, which went wild with spending in the 1980s, which is
fine, as long as you can afford to do so. There's no point in spending
more than your resources allow, and of course, there are people of
previous generations who were at the other extreme, saving almost
everything. Well I'm not saying there haven't been some examples
of NDP fiscal responsibility, like Romanow in Saskatchewan, but
those are rare. Besides, the country and provinces and territories
seems to fare better when the government in charge is practicing
fiscal prudence. Well eventually people bleeding in debt have to
come to terms with that debt, and so do governments. Sheila Fraser
had a report recently of the federal Liberals misspending money.
I wonder how much the actual taxes would be if government waste for
spending was eliminated. Some people that work in the civil service
I have talked to says the figure could run as high as 50%.
notritenoteri
2004-12-05 13:36:56 UTC
Permalink
Some people in the civil service say their name is Bob to but it don't cut
much ice. What is government waste? A lovely term but who defines it? I
think providing special schools for autistic kids is a waste but then I have
no kids at home. I also don't like wasting money of red light cameras since
I don't as a rule drive through them. Your into the area of bullshit when
you start talking about cutting waste. Your waste is someone else's dinner.
Your contention that spending more than you have is not axiomatic either.
Buying on credit is sometimes necessary and governments do it the same as
the populace. If people are hungry, cold or ill and have no money to pay for
food, shelter or healthcare then it makes sense for a government to go into
debt.
BTW you don't ever have to pay off a debt just keep paying the interest
thats all that matters.


"sneakysneak" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
news:<zAjsd.199$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> >Spare me the NDP snivel. The Last NDP govt in Ontario was no better or
worse
> >that either its Liberal predecessors or its PC successors. Jesus christ
and
> >all the angels couldn't have made a difference when the Rae govt was
> >elected. Its very amusing how critics of any political party always
blame
> >(insert name of party) for whatever ails the country or region concerned.
> >What is the magic of balanced budgets? Give me a set of books and an
couple
> >of accounts and I can have the books any way you want them . Why do
people
> >in their own personal lives seem to have no difficult in bleeding through
> >both nostrils to credit card and mortgage companies and on the other hand
> >thing that their governments should live a much more balanced life? I'll
> >bet you don't pay cash for anything.
> >You may well be correct about the wackos leading the wackos at some point
> >in time. Sounds like a match ordained in heaven, right in line with the
> >thinking of stockwell day and similar .
>
> I pay cash for most everything. I don't have any credit card debt, or
> any other kind of debt what to speak of at the current time, so I must
> be one of the lucky ones. You see I'm not of the materialistic Baby
> Boom generation, which went wild with spending in the 1980s, which is
> fine, as long as you can afford to do so. There's no point in spending
> more than your resources allow, and of course, there are people of
> previous generations who were at the other extreme, saving almost
> everything. Well I'm not saying there haven't been some examples
> of NDP fiscal responsibility, like Romanow in Saskatchewan, but
> those are rare. Besides, the country and provinces and territories
> seems to fare better when the government in charge is practicing
> fiscal prudence. Well eventually people bleeding in debt have to
> come to terms with that debt, and so do governments. Sheila Fraser
> had a report recently of the federal Liberals misspending money.
> I wonder how much the actual taxes would be if government waste for
> spending was eliminated. Some people that work in the civil service
> I have talked to says the figure could run as high as 50%.
Albert
2004-12-05 18:40:23 UTC
Permalink
Just think of how much more money we could pump into Quebec if we did not have
to pay 36 billion every year just to support the debt.

Who knows perhaps Quebec has been buying up our national debt with all the
equalization dollars we've been giving them. Somebody with good connections to
the Chrétien liberals holds most of the national debt. It ain't me.

notritenoteri wrote:

> Some people in the civil service say their name is Bob to but it don't cut
> much ice. What is government waste? A lovely term but who defines it? I
> think providing special schools for autistic kids is a waste but then I have
> no kids at home. I also don't like wasting money of red light cameras since
> I don't as a rule drive through them. Your into the area of bullshit when
> you start talking about cutting waste. Your waste is someone else's dinner.
> Your contention that spending more than you have is not axiomatic either.
> Buying on credit is sometimes necessary and governments do it the same as
> the populace. If people are hungry, cold or ill and have no money to pay for
> food, shelter or healthcare then it makes sense for a government to go into
> debt.
> BTW you don't ever have to pay off a debt just keep paying the interest
> thats all that matters.
>
> "sneakysneak" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:***@posting.google.com...
> > "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
> news:<zAjsd.199$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> > >Spare me the NDP snivel. The Last NDP govt in Ontario was no better or
> worse
> > >that either its Liberal predecessors or its PC successors. Jesus christ
> and
> > >all the angels couldn't have made a difference when the Rae govt was
> > >elected. Its very amusing how critics of any political party always
> blame
> > >(insert name of party) for whatever ails the country or region concerned.
> > >What is the magic of balanced budgets? Give me a set of books and an
> couple
> > >of accounts and I can have the books any way you want them . Why do
> people
> > >in their own personal lives seem to have no difficult in bleeding through
> > >both nostrils to credit card and mortgage companies and on the other hand
> > >thing that their governments should live a much more balanced life? I'll
> > >bet you don't pay cash for anything.
> > >You may well be correct about the wackos leading the wackos at some point
> > >in time. Sounds like a match ordained in heaven, right in line with the
> > >thinking of stockwell day and similar .
> >
> > I pay cash for most everything. I don't have any credit card debt, or
> > any other kind of debt what to speak of at the current time, so I must
> > be one of the lucky ones. You see I'm not of the materialistic Baby
> > Boom generation, which went wild with spending in the 1980s, which is
> > fine, as long as you can afford to do so. There's no point in spending
> > more than your resources allow, and of course, there are people of
> > previous generations who were at the other extreme, saving almost
> > everything. Well I'm not saying there haven't been some examples
> > of NDP fiscal responsibility, like Romanow in Saskatchewan, but
> > those are rare. Besides, the country and provinces and territories
> > seems to fare better when the government in charge is practicing
> > fiscal prudence. Well eventually people bleeding in debt have to
> > come to terms with that debt, and so do governments. Sheila Fraser
> > had a report recently of the federal Liberals misspending money.
> > I wonder how much the actual taxes would be if government waste for
> > spending was eliminated. Some people that work in the civil service
> > I have talked to says the figure could run as high as 50%.
Carl
2004-12-05 19:20:50 UTC
Permalink
Albert wrote:

> Just think of how much more money we could pump into Quebec if we did not have
> to pay 36 billion every year just to support the debt.
>
> Who knows perhaps Quebec has been buying up our national debt with all the
> equalization dollars we've been giving them. Somebody with good connections to
> the Chrétien liberals holds most of the national debt. It ain't me.

The only people that are close to the Chretien libs at the people of
Quebec. The Adscam type people.
>
> notritenoteri wrote:
>
>
>>Some people in the civil service say their name is Bob to but it don't cut
>>much ice. What is government waste? A lovely term but who defines it? I
>>think providing special schools for autistic kids is a waste but then I have
>>no kids at home. I also don't like wasting money of red light cameras since
>>I don't as a rule drive through them. Your into the area of bullshit when
>>you start talking about cutting waste. Your waste is someone else's dinner.
>>Your contention that spending more than you have is not axiomatic either.
>>Buying on credit is sometimes necessary and governments do it the same as
>>the populace. If people are hungry, cold or ill and have no money to pay for
>>food, shelter or healthcare then it makes sense for a government to go into
>>debt.
>>BTW you don't ever have to pay off a debt just keep paying the interest
>>thats all that matters.
>>
>>"sneakysneak" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>>news:***@posting.google.com...
>>
>>>"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:<zAjsd.199$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>>
>>>>Spare me the NDP snivel. The Last NDP govt in Ontario was no better or
>>
>>worse
>>
>>>>that either its Liberal predecessors or its PC successors. Jesus christ
>>
>>and
>>
>>>>all the angels couldn't have made a difference when the Rae govt was
>>>>elected. Its very amusing how critics of any political party always
>>
>>blame
>>
>>>>(insert name of party) for whatever ails the country or region concerned.
>>>>What is the magic of balanced budgets? Give me a set of books and an
>>
>>couple
>>
>>>>of accounts and I can have the books any way you want them . Why do
>>
>>people
>>
>>>>in their own personal lives seem to have no difficult in bleeding through
>>>>both nostrils to credit card and mortgage companies and on the other hand
>>>>thing that their governments should live a much more balanced life? I'll
>>>>bet you don't pay cash for anything.
>>>>You may well be correct about the wackos leading the wackos at some point
>>>>in time. Sounds like a match ordained in heaven, right in line with the
>>>>thinking of stockwell day and similar .
>>>
>>>I pay cash for most everything. I don't have any credit card debt, or
>>>any other kind of debt what to speak of at the current time, so I must
>>>be one of the lucky ones. You see I'm not of the materialistic Baby
>>>Boom generation, which went wild with spending in the 1980s, which is
>>>fine, as long as you can afford to do so. There's no point in spending
>>>more than your resources allow, and of course, there are people of
>>>previous generations who were at the other extreme, saving almost
>>>everything. Well I'm not saying there haven't been some examples
>>>of NDP fiscal responsibility, like Romanow in Saskatchewan, but
>>>those are rare. Besides, the country and provinces and territories
>>>seems to fare better when the government in charge is practicing
>>>fiscal prudence. Well eventually people bleeding in debt have to
>>>come to terms with that debt, and so do governments. Sheila Fraser
>>>had a report recently of the federal Liberals misspending money.
>>>I wonder how much the actual taxes would be if government waste for
>>>spending was eliminated. Some people that work in the civil service
>>>I have talked to says the figure could run as high as 50%.
>
>
sneakysneak
2004-12-06 06:21:48 UTC
Permalink
"notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message news:<S9Esd.305$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
>Some people in the civil service say their name is Bob to but it
don't cut
>much ice. What is government waste? A lovely term but who defines it?
I
>think providing special schools for autistic kids is a waste but then
I have
>no kids at home. I also don't like wasting money of red light cameras
since
>I don't as a rule drive through them. Your into the area of bullshit
when
>you start talking about cutting waste. Your waste is someone else's
dinner.
>Your contention that spending more than you have is not axiomatic
either.
>Buying on credit is sometimes necessary and governments do it the
same as
>the populace. If people are hungry, cold or ill and have no money to
pay for
>food, shelter or healthcare then it makes sense for a government to
go into
>debt.
>BTW you don't ever have to pay off a debt just keep paying the
interest
>thats all that matters.

Ah...but someone is paying for that principal. Like a bad student
loan,
there will be someone burying the burden of it (taxpayers, financial
service institution customers or the financial institutions
themselves).
You could choose to do that, but why continue to fork more money than
you have to your lenders? It would be better to pay off or down your
debt
as quickly as possible. Ideally, a person would like to pay off the
principal with as little interest as possible.
Let's start with the Governor General and her expense account for
example.
That would be an area to trim the meat. Here are some other areas to
consider: http://www.ancasternews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&c=Article&cid=1102027814154&call_pageid=1069766796189&col=1073476868071
How about some preventative action in terms of fixing Canada's health
care system? The fact is the cost is 10 times what it was 30 years
ago.
Even if you take inflation into account, that's ridiculous. Yes, there
are more people and the population is aging, but the fact is Canadians
are not exercising enough and eating properly collectively. If they
did,
the health costs would be cut substantially, not to mention costs to
employers. How about eliminating the gun registry altogether? How
about doing something about correcting the HRDC? Someone else's dinner
wouldn't be need in the form of government waste if the government did
something in the form of incentives so that person can get a decent
paying job. A transfer payment solution really is a bandage solution
to a much deeper problem. It doesn't really address the problem of
getting the person to work. Besides, the more people that are working
at a relevant income level, the larger the tax base. The larger the
tax base, that means the lower the tax rates for the rest. Relevant
income level means earning enough income in a year to fall into a
tax bracket.
notritenoteri
2004-12-06 16:39:28 UTC
Permalink
The prevention theory is all very nice. However it is just another fairy
tale like Little Red Riding Hood. If we were interested in prevention we
would ban alcohol and tobacco, make it criminal offences to grow,
manufacture, possess or use any product containing either of the two. I'm
sure you have no facts to back up your conjecture that changes in diet or
exercise patterns would substantially lower healthcare costs. The statement
is purely the figment of some advocate's imagination.
You argument about costing 10 times is pretty thin too. Thirty years ago say
1972 a cheap car cost about $4000 now the same car costs about 20,000. so
there is 5 times inflation right there. The life expectancy of the average
citizen has probably increased and I'm guessing from about 50 to 75 in other
words 50%. We also have 2 or three times the population. All in all I'd
guess if you worked out per capital health costs in constant dollars and
assigned a dollar value to improved quality and quantity of life we're
getting a pretty good deal. When I was born in the 40s the hospital bill
was $15 which today will buy you about 20 minutes
The health care needs adjustment but so do people's expectations. The idea
that unlimited resources should be expended to keep a three or 4 month
premature fetus alive is unreasonable. The idea that the state should supply
unlimited funds to "normalize" autistic children is also unreasonable.
Keeping people who have been in a persistent vegetative state is a very
expensive business.Resuscitating someone who is in their 80s or 90s and off
in Alzheimer's land doesn't make much sense either but people demand it all
the time.

Your desire for decent paying jobs is laudable but where? Job growth is in
the service area which never has and likely never will pay well. Let us face
the reality there are a lot of people who are not equipped to handle jobs
requiring more intellect than to know which end of a broom goes onto the
floor. If you paid day-care workers a living wage (about $25/hr plus
benefits) would you be able to afford it?

What makes Frank Stronich worth 45 million or so last year? As far as I know
he goes to the toilet the same as the rest of us.

I'm with you on the gun registry and that fat little cow who is Gov general.
Unfortunately though the sum of savings there is relative peanuts.
"sneakysneak" <***@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:***@posting.google.com...
> "notritenoteri" <***@hades.com> wrote in message
news:<S9Esd.305$***@newscontent-01.sprint.ca>...
> >Some people in the civil service say their name is Bob to but it
> don't cut
> >much ice. What is government waste? A lovely term but who defines it?
> I
> >think providing special schools for autistic kids is a waste but then
> I have
> >no kids at home. I also don't like wasting money of red light cameras
> since
> >I don't as a rule drive through them. Your into the area of bullshit
> when
> >you start talking about cutting waste. Your waste is someone else's
> dinner.
> >Your contention that spending more than you have is not axiomatic
> either.
> >Buying on credit is sometimes necessary and governments do it the
> same as
> >the populace. If people are hungry, cold or ill and have no money to
> pay for
> >food, shelter or healthcare then it makes sense for a government to
> go into
> >debt.
> >BTW you don't ever have to pay off a debt just keep paying the
> interest
> >thats all that matters.
>
> Ah...but someone is paying for that principal. Like a bad student
> loan,
> there will be someone burying the burden of it (taxpayers, financial
> service institution customers or the financial institutions
> themselves).
> You could choose to do that, but why continue to fork more money than
> you have to your lenders? It would be better to pay off or down your
> debt
> as quickly as possible. Ideally, a person would like to pay off the
> principal with as little interest as possible.
> Let's start with the Governor General and her expense account for
> example.
> That would be an area to trim the meat. Here are some other areas to
> consider:
http://www.ancasternews.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=brabant/Layout/Article&c=Article&cid=1102027814154&call_pageid=1069766796189&col=1073476868071
> How about some preventative action in terms of fixing Canada's health
> care system? The fact is the cost is 10 times what it was 30 years
> ago.
> Even if you take inflation into account, that's ridiculous. Yes, there
> are more people and the population is aging, but the fact is Canadians
> are not exercising enough and eating properly collectively. If they
> did,
> the health costs would be cut substantially, not to mention costs to
> employers. How about eliminating the gun registry altogether? How
> about doing something about correcting the HRDC? Someone else's dinner
> wouldn't be need in the form of government waste if the government did
> something in the form of incentives so that person can get a decent
> paying job. A transfer payment solution really is a bandage solution
> to a much deeper problem. It doesn't really address the problem of
> getting the person to work. Besides, the more people that are working
> at a relevant income level, the larger the tax base. The larger the
> tax base, that means the lower the tax rates for the rest. Relevant
> income level means earning enough income in a year to fall into a
> tax bracket.
p***@my-deja.com
2004-12-11 06:25:38 UTC
Permalink
notritenoteri wrote:
>The prevention theory is all very nice. However it is just another
fairy
>tale like Little Red Riding Hood. If we were interested in prevention
we
>would ban alcohol and tobacco, make it criminal offences to grow,
>manufacture, possess or use any product containing either of the two.
I'm
>sure you have no facts to back up your conjecture that changes in diet
or
>exercise patterns would substantially lower healthcare costs. The
statement
>is purely the figment of some advocate's imagination.
>You argument about costing 10 times is pretty thin too. Thirty years
ago say
>1972 a cheap car cost about $4000 now the same car costs about 20,000.
so
>there is 5 times inflation right there. The life expectancy of the
average
>citizen has probably increased and I'm guessing from about 50 to 75 in
other
>words 50%. We also have 2 or three times the population. All in all
I'd
>guess if you worked out per capital health costs in constant dollars
and
>assigned a dollar value to improved quality and quantity of life we're
>getting a pretty good deal. When I was born in the 40s the hospital
bill
>was $15 which today will buy you about 20 minutes
>The health care needs adjustment but so do people's expectations. The
idea
>that unlimited resources should be expended to keep a three or 4 month
>premature fetus alive is unreasonable. The idea that the state should
supply
>unlimited funds to "normalize" autistic children is also unreasonable.
>Keeping people who have been in a persistent vegetative state is a
very
>expensive business.Resuscitating someone who is in their 80s or 90s
and off
>in Alzheimer's land doesn't make much sense either but people demand
it all
>the time.
>
>Your desire for decent paying jobs is laudable but where? Job growth
is in
>the service area which never has and likely never will pay well. Let
us face
>the reality there are a lot of people who are not equipped to handle
jobs
>requiring more intellect than to know which end of a broom goes onto
the
>floor. If you paid day-care workers a living wage (about $25/hr plus
>benefits) would you be able to afford it?
>
>What makes Frank Stronich worth 45 million or so last year? As far as
I know
>he goes to the toilet the same as the rest of us.
>
>I'm with you on the gun registry and that fat little cow who is Gov
general.
>Unfortunately though the sum of savings there is relative peanuts.
>
Ask any physician...the facts are these: Canadians don't do enough
exercise and their diets are relatively poor from a nutritional
standpoint. A study came out that found smoking detrimental to
intelligence. I doubt it...the healthier the population, the less
sickness and the quicker they recover from injuries, and the less
absenteeism from work. Unless you have a health condition that is
inherited and can't be cured with modern medicine, surgery, diet
and/or exercise, you really don't have an excuse not to get in the
best shape you possibly can be in given your age and present physical
condition do you? Why are the kids from this generation in worse shape
than the ones in the 1980s? I think Participaction made a difference
to some degree. We need something like that now.
http://www.news24.com/News24/Technology/News/0,,2-13-1443_1633197,00.html
The costs for health care in Canada this year are in the range of $130
billion.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041209.whealthcare09/BNStory/National/
If you want to look at 1974-75 figures, go here and look at Tables 1-6:
http://secure.cihi.ca/cihiweb/dispPage.jsp?cw_page=media_3nov2004_2_e
Smoking is more detrimental than drinking. Alcoholic beverages,
when consumed in moderation isn't a problem. There is nothing
beneficial about tobacco products consumption from a health standpoint.
At least wine drinkers can get some benefit from drinking 1-2 glasses/
day. Besides employing farmers, and an easy tax grab for the
government,
what are other benefits for tobacco, besides keeping Phillip Morris
happy?
Job growth is usually spurred by investment, meaning private
investors, not the government. Granted, not all people are capable
of doing all jobs, however, the standard of living has generally
improved throughout history for the most part. Daycare workers
have to be licensed and educated I think. Working a menial job
does not. Frank Stronach is where he is because he founded a
successful company despite coming to Canada with very little.
He wouldn't receive that compensation if his company wasn't doing
well, and the CEO usually receives the biggest slice of the pie,
and the last time I checked he was in charge of Magma. There is
talk of tax cuts by the Commons finance committee, but that is
likely to be opposed by Paul Martin, the NDP and the Bloc, and
probably other Liberals as well. I don't know if it will happen
though.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20041209.wfinances09/BNStory/National/
http://www.cfra.com/headlines/index.asp?cat=2&nid=22565
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20041210/FINANCE10/TPNational/Canada
Tom the canuck
2004-12-03 01:42:48 UTC
Permalink
more tolerance for "undesirables..." hmmm...thats the beginning of
something... very dangerous... like Germany in the 1930's dangerous.

Slipping morals, I agree. But the religious right wing is responsible for
that:
1)The religous right wants the death penalty back;
2)The religous right keep saying homosexuals will burn in hell. Sounds real
loving and accepting of other human beings to me;
3)They are the ones turning their backs on the poor, supporting more tax
cuts while the poor suffer in squalour;
4)They are the ones who would kick a gay person with aids and tell her or
him "you got it because you sinned and you deserved it;"
5)They are the ones who are in favour of drug control, yet secretly take
drugs themselves-eg. Rush Limbaugh. Rushy hasn't been supporting drug
control as much since he was busted by the National Enquirer, eh?

Myself, I'm a liberal. I say, lets be accepting of everyone, poor, gay,
black, white, asian, muslim, or whatever, and lets try to make the world a
better place. The word "undesirables," is a word of danger in that you want
to label people on some unknown basis, to exclude them from society.

I find people who are from the religious right intolerant, unaccepting, and
ready to ridicule anyone who isn't white and rich. I don't feel thats the
way human beings should treat each other.

Finally, I am not saying all people from the religous right are this
way-definitely not. Most of them are loving, humane individiuals who are
just right wing. Some of them tho, want to get rid of the "undesirables..."
wooo hooo... sounds like a scary thought to me.








"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>
>>Simplistic people who think like this.
>>
>>
>>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>>>
>>>
>>> ...."liberalism"!
>>
>>
>
> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>
Jack Plant
2004-12-03 03:00:26 UTC
Permalink
I said "undesirable" because I didn;t want to use the word "criminal"
again. Some imaginations seem to have inferred that I meant everyone
from gays to pot smokers,...not so.

And just for the record, I am NOT religious.

Maybe "undesirables" was a wrong choice,...but I meant it in the
objective sense....as in TRULY, and legitimately undesirable,,,,,ie.
terrorists etc.


On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 19:42:48 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
<***@yahoo.ca> wrote:

>more tolerance for "undesirables..." hmmm...thats the beginning of
>something... very dangerous... like Germany in the 1930's dangerous.
>
>Slipping morals, I agree. But the religious right wing is responsible for
>that:
>1)The religous right wants the death penalty back;
>2)The religous right keep saying homosexuals will burn in hell. Sounds real
>loving and accepting of other human beings to me;
>3)They are the ones turning their backs on the poor, supporting more tax
>cuts while the poor suffer in squalour;
>4)They are the ones who would kick a gay person with aids and tell her or
>him "you got it because you sinned and you deserved it;"
>5)They are the ones who are in favour of drug control, yet secretly take
>drugs themselves-eg. Rush Limbaugh. Rushy hasn't been supporting drug
>control as much since he was busted by the National Enquirer, eh?
>
>Myself, I'm a liberal. I say, lets be accepting of everyone, poor, gay,
>black, white, asian, muslim, or whatever, and lets try to make the world a
>better place. The word "undesirables," is a word of danger in that you want
>to label people on some unknown basis, to exclude them from society.
>
>I find people who are from the religious right intolerant, unaccepting, and
>ready to ridicule anyone who isn't white and rich. I don't feel thats the
>way human beings should treat each other.
>
>Finally, I am not saying all people from the religous right are this
>way-definitely not. Most of them are loving, humane individiuals who are
>just right wing. Some of them tho, want to get rid of the "undesirables..."
>wooo hooo... sounds like a scary thought to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>> On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
>> <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>Simplistic people who think like this.
>>>
>>>
>>>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
>>>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ...."liberalism"!
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
>> criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
>> laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
>> for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
>>
>
>
notritenoteri
2004-12-03 14:01:13 UTC
Permalink
Tommy,
you are too kind and confused. You say,
"Finally, I am not saying all people from the religious right are this
way-definitely not. Most of them are loving, humane individuals who are just
right wing."
Bit of an oxymoron isn't it? If they were loving, humane they wouldn't be
right wing christers. They wouldn't demand to tell the rest of the world
what is proper and what is not, what to believe what no to. They would be
compassionate and understanding. How can you be right wing christer if you
don't believe "the undesirables are going to hell?

"Tom the canuck" <***@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:nwPrd.152$***@news1.mts.net...
> more tolerance for "undesirables..." hmmm...thats the beginning of
> something... very dangerous... like Germany in the 1930's dangerous.
>
> Slipping morals, I agree. But the religious right wing is responsible for
> that:
> 1)The religous right wants the death penalty back;
> 2)The religous right keep saying homosexuals will burn in hell. Sounds
real
> loving and accepting of other human beings to me;
> 3)They are the ones turning their backs on the poor, supporting more tax
> cuts while the poor suffer in squalour;
> 4)They are the ones who would kick a gay person with aids and tell her or
> him "you got it because you sinned and you deserved it;"
> 5)They are the ones who are in favour of drug control, yet secretly take
> drugs themselves-eg. Rush Limbaugh. Rushy hasn't been supporting drug
> control as much since he was busted by the National Enquirer, eh?
>
> Myself, I'm a liberal. I say, lets be accepting of everyone, poor, gay,
> black, white, asian, muslim, or whatever, and lets try to make the world a
> better place. The word "undesirables," is a word of danger in that you
want
> to label people on some unknown basis, to exclude them from society.
>
> I find people who are from the religious right intolerant, unaccepting,
and
> ready to ridicule anyone who isn't white and rich. I don't feel thats the
> way human beings should treat each other.
>
> Finally, I am not saying all people from the religous right are this
> way-definitely not. Most of them are loving, humane individiuals who are
> just right wing. Some of them tho, want to get rid of the
"undesirables..."
> wooo hooo... sounds like a scary thought to me.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> > On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 20:35:36 -0600, "Tom the canuck"
> > <***@yahoo.ca> wrote:
> >
> >>Simplistic people who think like this.
> >>
> >>
> >>"Jack Plant" <***@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >>news:***@news1.on.sympatico.ca...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ...."liberalism"!
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Simple?? I think not! Liberalism has led to softer sentencing for
> > criminals, less individual responsibility, lower standards and more
> > laxity in the schools, less defence for the country, more tolerance
> > for "undesirables". more bilingualism, more graft etc. etc. etc......
> >
>
>
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...