Belinda Stronach appointed to Cabinet

[Derry McKinney]

She's a hero for Newfoundland and Labrador, saving the Atlantic Accord, was received quite well up there but the bi-election, whenever it is, wherever it is, the people will vote and probably not for the party that tried to force an election that the majority of Canadians didn't want,

The byelection was on Tuesday. The Liberals won handily.

 

[bluealberta]

She's a hero for Newfoundland and Labrador, saving the Atlantic Accord, was received quite well up there but the bi-election, whenever it is, wherever it is, the people will vote and probably not for the party that tried to force an election that the majority of Canadians didn't want,

The byelection was on Tuesday. The Liberals won handily.

Yes, based on the lie that the conservatives would cancel the accord, when they are the ones who first proposed it, and said they would keep and enhance it. Just goes to show that Barnum was right.

And where did the NDP candidate finish? You know, the one from the party that all the ND's think is a viable alternative. Oh, yeah, third. Too bad. For all you hate the conservatives, they still finished higher than the ND candidate. :twisted:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I sense a certain futility in your tone, BlueBoy. It's as if you recognize that your party is a joke and you are just lashing out. I guess the best way to put it is that you are acting like a spoiled rich kind who finally had an adult look at him and say, "No!"

yell and scream and kick your feet, BA. You aren't going to rip this country apart any time soon.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I sense a certain futility in your tone, BlueBoy. It's as if you recognize that your party is a joke and you are just lashing out. I guess the best way to put it is that you are acting like a spoiled rich kind who finally had an adult look at him and say, "No!"

yell and scream and kick your feet, BA. You aren't going to rip this country apart any time soon.

Not my fault if people like government by chequebook. Easy to keep acdepting money when you are not the ones paying for it. Why did your candidate finish third? I thought the ND's were the logical alternative because everyone hates the Libs and conservatives, so they would park their votes with the ND's. Wrong again.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I sense a certain futility in your tone, BlueBoy. It's as if you recognize that your party is a joke and you are just lashing out. I guess the best way to put it is that you are acting like a spoiled rich kind who finally had an adult look at him and say, "No!"

yell and scream and kick your feet, BA. You aren't going to rip this country apart any time soon.

Not my fault if people like government by chequebook. Easy to keep accepting money when you are not the ones paying for it. Why did your candidate finish third? I thought the ND's were the logical alternative because everyone hates the Libs and conservatives, so they would park their votes with the ND's. Wrong again.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I sense a certain futility in your tone, BlueBoy. It's as if you recognize that your party is a joke and you are just lashing out. I guess the best way to put it is that you are acting like a spoiled rich kind who finally had an adult look at him and say, "No!"

yell and scream and kick your feet, BA. You aren't going to rip this country apart any time soon.

Not my fault if people like government by chequebook. Easy to keep accepting money when you are not the ones paying for it. Why did your candidate finish third? I thought the ND's were the logical alternative because everyone hates the Libs and conservatives, so they would park their votes with the ND's. Wrong again.

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Triple post? Feeling a little twitchy there, Blueboy?

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

Triple post? Feeling a little twitchy there, Blueboy?

Naw, you quadrupled a while back, I only need three to make my point. :twisted:

 

[S-Ranger]

Ummm....what Ranger said. Don't assume that Saskatchewan is really as Conservative as it looks though, Ranger. We would have had Lorne Nystrom in my riding, but the Liberal scare tactics split the vote and we ended up with wonder boy Andrew Scheer instead.

Hmm. A pickle. How to gracefully get out of it...

I guess it'd have to do with my not seeing the "conservative" reform-alliance as being "conservative" or capable of selling water in a desert without going bankrupt (partly because they don't represent anything that has any real markets to sell to; haul all the water they want into the "desert", with no customers/markets and screwing the transportation up, they'd lose money), let alone Conservative with a capitalist C.

It's like a bizarre cross between Jimmy Swaggart (televangelist caught with a hooker; "I have sinned, forgive me!" and they did then he was caught with a hooker again) and the NDP around "fiscal" anything, economic anything, having a clue about anything, as far as I'm concerned.

Combine that with the insults to the words "structure" and "systems" of this mess, looking at over 100 years of history in this "federation" and hundreds of billions of dollars that have poured out of "Ontario" (south) in the last decade alone, to accomplish worse than nothing other than screwing the City of Toronto, GTA , "Golden" (rusty) Horseshoe area up, getting the last confederate "conservative" (how is anything supposed to be Conserative in this socialist disaster?) budget deficit paid off and a decent chunk off the federal debt, which "Ontario" doesn't owe a cent of, and what's going on between Toronto city hall and the Ontario feds at the moment is far more important than anything at the less than worthless confederate level, it's "South Ontario isolation".

Dumping the Ontario feds is the first goal, getting them out of the way to wipe the political map of "Ontario" clean, replace it with an economic map to separate the south from the rest, then restructuring everything in the south from the municipal/county level, getting whatever this "GTA thing" is supposed to be functioning (it does quite well despite the fiscal and legislative straitjacket that would baffle Houdini, with 25% of the GDP of the Canadas, more than the rest of the Ontarios, Quebec is at about 21%, B.C., well hell):

GDP PERCENT BY JURISDICTION (based on source below, 2004)
Sorted from highest to lowest

ONTARIO ...............  42.10
QUEBEC ................  21.07
BRITISH COLUMBIA ......  12.38
ALBERTA ...............  11.99
MANITOBA ..............   3.14
SASKATCHEWAN ..........   2.95
NOVA SCOTIA ...........   2.28
NEW BRUNSWICK .........   1.89
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR   1.38
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES .   0.34 <--
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ..   0.30
YUKON TERRITORY .......   0.11
NUNAVAT TERRITORY .....   0.07

Source: http://www.statcan.ca/english/Pgdb/econ50.htm

Slap on this:

Windsor-Québec City Corridor, 2001

Ontario Section
10,706,513 93% of Ontario's population

Québec Section
6,327,354 87% of Québec's population

Total Population
17,033,867 57% of Canada's population

Source: Statistics Canada 2001 Census

...7% of the population of Ontario, just over the population of New Brunswick lives in the vast lands of the Ontarios 0-200km north (and south in lots of places) of the 401 (hwy).

Montreal out-populates (and has more markets with more money to sell to) Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador combined.

We only have ten provinces. This isn't the U.S. and south Ontario and south Quebec pay for their norths, not that they're worthless or that it's anything personal, I'm just a fiscal Conservative with a capitalist C.

The Windsor-Quebec City Corridor has to be "pulled out" of this country and it's certainly not my idea; the whole plan it's rather involved. Not separating but restructured out so that it's out of the face of the rest of the Canadas politically and economically (and vice versa by happenstance). And we can't have one central bank/monetary policy which tends to be fiscal policy or one exchange rate either.

Everything else has to have the power to control its own destiny, though I see no evidence that everything else hasn't done so which is why this region has to go. The gripe-fests have to end and if others want to believe that they're conservative or even Conservative based on what I don't know, religion, the U.S. version of "left and right", moral whatever based on christian (which version, build/patch number?) "fundamentalism", which is just a codeword for extremism, closed-mindeness leads to ignorance and intolerance and intolerance which leads to discriminations and none of it has anything to do with capitalism.

The religion of knowledge-based economies, which is what the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor economies are, is R&D and its food is skilled human capital. Supply is supply and we import it from all over the world.

Intolerance leads to stagnation or regression and that is not capitalist. Nor is this:

Major "Federal" Transfers
2004-05 and 2005-06 estimates sorted from the highest, per person, to the lowest for 2005-06

Per capita/person and percentage of total government revenues

                            2004-05       2005-06
NUNAVAT TERRITORY .....  $25,975 / 88% $28,061 / 91%  UP 3%
NORTHWEST TERRITORIES .  $16,633 / 78% $17,951 / 80%  UP 2%
YUKON TERRITORY .......  $15,727 / 76% $16,818 / 78%  UP 2%
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND ..  $ 2,930 / 39%  $3,291 / 42%  UP 3%
NEW BRUNSWICK .........  $ 2,739 / 36%  $3,111 / 39%  UP 3%
NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR  $ 2,449 / 32%  $2,966 / 34%  UP 2%*
NOVA SCOTIA ...........  $ 2,455 / 39%  $2,793 / 42%  UP 3%
MANITOBA ..............  $ 2,428 / 38%  $2,717 / 40%  UP 2%
QUEBEC ................  $ 1,757 / 25%  $2,052 / 26%  UP 1%
BRITISH COLUMBIA ......  $ 1,383 / 18%  $1,570 / 19%  UP 1%
SASKATCHEWAN ..........  $ 1,332 / 20%  $1,487 / 28%  UP 8%**
ONTARIO ...............  $ 1,322 / 21%  $1,487 / 21%  UP 0%
ALBERTA ...............  $ 1,321 / 16%  $1,486 / 16%  UP 0%

* NL Up one position over NS from 2004-05
**SK up the highest of every jurisdiction in percentage of provincial revenues

Just pittances of tax returns to "Ontario", as always. And with over 21% of the GDP of the Canadas, Quebec's economy is worth investing in; particularly given than it has the other end of the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor. It's got the second-highest net debt per capita in the country behind only NL, nothing is paying into Quebec's economy but south Ontario, it is mathematically impossible and those gripe-fests by the rest of the Canadas are going to end as well.

And with the percentages of GDP alone above, which don't take any of the above into account: how much money leaves the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor every year into other economies and gross is gross but only for one (and the first) fiscal year.

The confederate feds collect up the taxes, south Ontario pays 50% or more of the expenses on a federal debt it doesn't owe one cent of, everything is always screaming for more and more and more money from "the feds" as though they have geese laying golden eggs under magical money trees and none of that is "conservative".

70% of all federal revenues come right out of the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor. But trying to explain the restructuring is pointless. As with the country, phpBB doesn't have the forum system for it (sub-forums are required) to even try to discuss it.

Socialism and conservative are contradictions in terms in my books. How anyone/anything socialist could possibly be conservative is beyond me.

 

[bluealberta]

Geez Ranger, can you not post anything a little more concise? :wink:

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Geez Ranger, can you not post anything a little more concise? :wink:

You know blue, Ranger is doing an exemplary job of tearing you to pieces, and you don't even know it, because you're too lazy to read his posts...

...of course socialism is feeling some collateral damage as well... 8O

At any rate, keep up the good work Ranger... :thumbleft:

 

[Derry McKinney]

RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I think Blue is counting on nobody else reading Ranger's posts, Vanni.

 

[bluealberta]

Re: RE: Belinda Stronach appo

I think Blue is counting on nobody else reading Ranger's posts, Vanni.

has nothing to do with that. Just takes time to respond to everything. :twisted:

 

[S-Ranger]

Ranger,

Your posts are just way too long to read and respond to.

The documentation is not meant to be responded to. It's meant to be read to educate you and anyone else reading, based on the usual around "conservative" (around what? I've asked enough times) reform-alliance -- closed-mindedness and intolerance, which leads to ignorance (lacking knowledge/facts -- but full of marketing propaganda and parroting it exactly as intended).

Forget "my" post, the quotes documenting the recession you managed to find, as it showed up in Federal Reserve Notes based on the interest rate of the U.S. Federal Reserve not the Bank of Canada, and what the major cause of the recession was, the main addition to it in this country, was not written by me or for me, but for the UCLA School of Policy Research -- and not even the whole introduction let alone the document.

After you changed the subject to try to prove that Chretien caused a North America-wide (around us) recession that you had no clue about because all you were doing was looking at currency -- and from the wrong end.

The exchange rates I quoted are international exchange rates, and the source had all currencies on it. It has nothing to do with where it is, the exchange rates are what they are.

I beg your pardon? Don't even try to lecture me with your ignorance, which I wouldn't have bothered explaining had it not been public, because if others went and did the same thing based on your ignorance they'd end up as lost as you are. And it's not a personal 'attack' it's an obvious fact by this point.

There is no such thing as "the source" having all international currencies on it because "the source" was a U.S. Federal Reserve Bank.

What do you think they base exchange rates on, the interest rate the Bank of Canada is charging on Canadian Bank Notes? The interest rate the Bank of England is charging on the British Pound?

I gave you the proper link to find out what the Canadian dollar is worth here, based on any other currency in the world -- the Bank of Canada, not the Bank of Japan, Bank of England, Federal Reserve or any other central bank.

And showed you/anyone that if you look at it from the Canadian end then look at it from the American (or any other) end, the exchange rates will never match up -- due to what each central bank is charging in interest on its currency, just for starters.

This site was the one I found that went back to 1994, which was necessary to the point I was making about the dollar dropping during the Chretien years. If you don't want to believe the source, fine.

Believe what about "the source"? That you have no clue about a recession (or apparently even what happened on Sept 11, 2001) and no clue how to even demonstrate that?

The point you made is that the Canadian dollar was at 62 cent U.S. 8 months ago not in 1994.

And that it has risen steadily ever since (since what that happened 8 months ago? I showed you a Canadian economic report from 8 months ago, certainly not the whole thing, but more than enough, and business news directly related to the trade/exchange rate of CAD for USD -- namely the fall of the USD in relation to every other currency on the planet that trades openly) "due to the possibility of the 'conservative' reform-alliance taking over. :?:

So once again, why is it that the Canadian dollar has gone DOWN not UP since what I stated originally, testimony out of the Gomery inquiry that didn't look good for the "liberals"?

Why has the Canadian dollar gone DOWN due to testimony out of the Gomery inqiry that should have been good news around this theory of yours that the dollar has gone UP due to the possibility of the "conservatives" taking over?

Why didn't the dollar go UP when the possibility of confederate "conservatives" kicking the "liberals" out started to look like a possibility as you claimed? Even with what you posted, from the U.S. perspective (around currency anyway), you dug your own grave on your own point, showing "the dollar" (or was it the interest rate differential?), U.S., as traded for Canadian dollars, backwards. going down, not up: but if you missed the news around the Canadian dollar going over 85 cents U.S. and what the Bank of Canada, not any government, did about that, then why are you even looking at currrencies to try to prove anything?

Talk the talk but can't walk the walk -- much like the harper.

Why didn't the dollar go DOWN when Stronach left the "conservatives" and pretty much said it all for south Ontario, and added another vote to the "liberal" side against the possibility of the "conservatives" taking over? Why did the dollar go UP instead?

Carolyn Parrish had already stated she'd be voting FOR C-78, AGAINST crashing the government, AGAINST the possibility of the "conservatives" forcing an election that they would have lost anyway, but in your head (and in writing), the dollar is going UP over the possibility of the "conservatives" taking over so why did the dollar go DOWN when Parrish ended up in the hospital on the day of the vote and no one was going to sit anyone out because she was/is an independent?

One less vote for the "liberals", one more vote for "the possibility of the 'conservatives' taking over" and on the day of the vote. Why did the dollar go DOWN over that news?

Then why did the dollar go UP when the news came out that Parrish would be able to vote?

Stymied again? So are the alleged "conservatives".

 

[S-Ranger]

Geez Ranger, can you not post anything a little more concise? :wink:

You know blue, Ranger is doing an exemplary job of tearing you to pieces, and you don't even know it, because you're too lazy to read his posts...

...of course socialism is feeling some collateral damage as well... 8O

At any rate, keep up the good work Ranger... :thumbleft:

Wow. It's unusual to find a site where anyone cares about facts. "How to fix Canada in ten words or less" is the usual. [But I'm not trying to "rip anyone to shreds" ... the truth will set us all free and I don't proclaim to be "the truth" because it's quite an elusive thing, but the basic facts so far are pretty simple.]

Socialism needn't be involved, other than around a pickle and it's not my contention, but Saskatchewan (governments not the people) has had the crap beaten out of it by economists/analysts and the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, I'd just stumbled across another document about the lie of Ontario taxes being low, due to surtaxes that put it right up there with ... I didn't write it, no offense intended (and there are explanations for it) Newfoundland and Labrador, Quebec and "even socialist Saskatchewan".

One thing I have never considered Saskatchewan to be is conservative. And it's certainly not just me, but I just don't get it around this country with this "conservative" and "left and right" business.

Canada is one of the most secular countries on the planet and we intend to keep it that way. Secular as in real separation of Church from State, because it's a gift from the gods or whichever particular version of god anyone has a subscription with and constitutional right to.

Socialism existed and exists around hunter-gatherers. We're social animals and didn't get to the top of the food chain and manage to kill so many millions of ourselves and come up with the ability to destroy the planet in several ways by being isolationists.

I don't want to have to build every road I drive on, change steetight when they burn out, buy and install/maintain my own traffic signal, install/maintain my end of the sewers/water mains, treatment plants, sidewalks, etc., etc. It's just a question of where the line is drawn and I don't want it drawn where the U.S. does:

Call 911 because someone broke into your home, stole the big screen TV in the recreation room in the basement, lit the house on fire, ended up burning someone and the cops show up, no charge, fire department, no charge, fire marshall to investigate for arson, no charge, detectives to find out how the burglar-freak got past your alarm system, but someone got burned and now you're in trouble if you don't qualify for medicare and don't have private health insurance. You'll get treated but will get slapped with a bill.

The U.S. military is socialist. Everything in the U.S. is socialist other than healthcare. And they spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare (personally) but the system certainly doesn't show it. And over 10% of the population has no coverage for healthcare at all.

It's not some slap against the U.S.; our systems are in need of repair around health and it's up to the U.S. to do whatever it wants to do. It's up to us to figure out our problems and how to do that without getting the facts on the table, without any offense, if the facts are wrong, correct them (whomever). But they have to be on the table because no one fixes anything that isn't broken and the whole structure of the country is broken and we could stick a monkey in as "prime minister", fill the whole place with them, and couldn't do much worse.

It's difficult to get the facts on the table without causing offense, but if the facts then they are. If they show problems then they do. And the level of tax plundering from the City of Toronto, GTA, south Ontario, south Quebec (there would be no hope in paying the federal debt, just servicing it, without Quebec's economy/revenues even though it'd be in serious financial trouble if it could ever get past the Clarity Act, and best of luck with that, would have a debtload that would, around the most moderate document I've read, just based on splitting up the national debt per capita, along with Quebec's existing provincial debts, put it in the company of Madagascar and Jamaica, and that's on a 100 cent Canadian dollar, which is impossible with a stand-alone economy) ... then Alberta comes in with a bigger mouth than Quebec has, and about half of its GDP, nowhere near its economy/revenues paid out, as though it's running Canada or something.

Or should be, with 11.99% of the GDP compared to the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor with 63.17% of the GDP (last fiscal year). It's mind boggling and it paid out a billion dollars less in taxes than the City of Toronto alone got plundered of.

It has RCMP "federal"-provincial law enforcement but they're holding cards and are going to "separate from Canada if ... if ... if something unknown doesn't happen and then what? We pull their LAW ENFORCEMENT. At least Quebec has its own law enforcement and a real economy that isn't based on the price of chicken and such.

Little Newfoundland and Labrador "threatened us" by pulling flags down over finally having to play by the rules of equalization welfare handouts, 70% of provincial revenues from natural resources being applied against welfare and they threw fit and got cut a $2 billion cheque overnight -- with 7 MP's and -2% of the GDP of the Canadas.

There's socialism, things that make sense and insanity, like Saskatchewan got cut off (a ridiculous term; it's welfare. You make money on welfare and it's deducted from your cheque, and usually 100% of the money you made, not 70% because you happened to be working around natural resources), properly, its provincial government was/is making enough in provincial revenues that it doesn't qualify for welfare.

But apply it across the board. If SK has to play by the rules then so do NL and NS. And if no one is going to play by the rules then rip them up and stop pretending that there are rules. That's "insane" socialism. And now the government of NL has over $2,000 more per capita to spend on its budgets/programs/citizens per capita than the Ontario government does per capita.

And that'd be fine if NL weren't on welfare handouts paid for entirely by Ontario (south) taxpayers, who can't get anywhere near what NL or anything else gets, when Ontario is supposed to have all of the eeeeevil "power" and such.

How that amounts to being "conservative", living in provinces with "conservative" MP's and/or premiers (or not but still claiming to be "conservative") just doesn't make any sense to me. And lots of others in the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor. Even Duceppe, "even", he was the only one who did stand up for "Ontario" in the ridiculous House of Commoners (as opposed to our "royalty" ... the Governor General, who is a refugee from Hong Kong and has blown more money, unaccounted for, than the Firearms Board/gun registry, the advertising campaign in Quebec, she blew $6.4 billion in two years with no explanation, no receipts/invoices, no clue what she spent it on, so why wasn't she hung out to dry? ... That is insane and real Conservatives were all over it, but from Toronto and such and who cares about that? It's only worth tens of billions of federal revenues a year, why should it have any say over anything or Ontario either?

But without solutions, there's no point in bringing it up and the solutions are books -- more than one paragraph. More than a page even.

And I'd love to see what average Canadians (not that I'm not one) think about it. Like how to restructure the country from their own perspectives as opposed to coming from big corporations, heads of professional guilds and labor unions, the usual along with the usual in the U.S.

It just has to start in the Windsor-Quebec City Corridor. As in, if anything is going to get what it wants, trying to go against almost 60% of the population, 70% of all federal revenues on average and everything else sitting in the region, which is the largest economic trading partner with the U.S., so trying to go against the U.S. as well, it's not going to work out.

But everything should be on board for it, instead of trying to pee on what's holding all the cards. The entire federal government is sitting right on our land, not in a legal District or anything else.

It seems to me that we'd all get further cooperating than wasting time with worthless confederate feds who are going to do what?

"Conservative", "liberal" ... monkeys, what's the big plan for the ridiculous House of Commons to do on its own?

I'm just trying to feel the site out to see if it's worth bothering with. So far I've been amazed that the moderator(s) actually post public warnings as opposed to just slapping bans on the IP addresses of ISPs. And perhaps one person actually read more than a soundbyte. So far. And thanks.

 

[Cosmo]

I'm just trying to feel the site out to see if it's worth bothering with. So far I've been amazed that the moderator(s) actually post public warnings as opposed to just slapping bans on the IP addresses of ISPs. And perhaps one person actually read more than a soundbyte. So far. And thanks.

I've just started a new job and haven't been reading all the posts so I missed your entrance, Ranger. First, welcome to you. I took the time to read your 19 posts and am impressed. You substantiate your claims, you are articulate, and you get your point across without character assassination. You are definitely an asset to our little corner of cyberspace! I hope you find the site worthwhile.

Thanks for the positive feedback on moderating. Not only do we try to read what people are writing and post warnings before banning, we also take the time to PM posters and give them the opportunity to express their side of issues. We also confer with each other, and when possible, with Andem, before banning any regulars. That keeps one mod from getting too annoyed and booting someone out of temper. We really hate banning people. It is a last resort. That said, there are a few trolls we've come to know and love who we ban on sight, but they've earned the privilege. Anyway, your comments about it are appreciated. Always good to hear how we're doing -- especially when it's positive.

Hope you choose to stay.

 

[bluealberta]

Ranger Wrote:

The U.S. military is socialist. Everything in the U.S. is socialist other than healthcare. And they spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare (personally) but the system certainly doesn't show it. And over 10% of the population has no coverage for healthcare at all.

I am still reading your post, but this one I had to respond to. As was posted by another poster on this forum, the claim about people without healthcare is a bit of a misnomer. There are 1871 community clinics and hospitals, sponsored by the state, in the US that are specifically for people without health care coverage, and are free. The problem as explained by the other poster, was that these generally have waiting lists, while the other hospitals have short or no lists at all, so instead of using the community clinics of hospitals, people without insurance go to the other hospitals, which have to take them, and then the uninsured get a bill. If they went to the community places, waiting times, but no cost.

I am not making judgement one way or another, but there is a safety net for those who have not insurance coverage.

 

[S-Ranger]

I'm just trying to feel the site out to see if it's worth bothering with. So far I've been amazed that the moderator(s) actually post public warnings as opposed to just slapping bans on the IP addresses of ISPs. And perhaps one person actually read more than a soundbyte. So far. And thanks.

I've just started a new job and haven't been reading all the posts so I missed your entrance, Ranger. First, welcome to you. I took the time to read your 19 posts and am impressed. You substantiate your claims, you are articulate, and you get your point across without character assassination. You are definitely an asset to our little corner of cyberspace! I hope you find the site worthwhile.

Thanks and it's nice to meet you. I don't know if this should be a pm or not; it's not exactly on-topic of the forum or thread but you started it.

Just to clarify something from a second look at the quote above: "The site" means the folks on it, "worth bothering with" as in whether I'm of any use here or not.

I hope others find my posts to be worthwhile; or I won't be worthwile. The site has a good structure, international issues off in another forum (tends to mean U.S. foreign policy, which has been discussed to death: but the forum is there for those who wish to discuss it ... and to move off-topic posts to that don't directly involve Canada, which is something a lot of sites lack) and I haven't seen threads turning into same-sex marriage debates or homosexuals or gay marriage or gays or gays getting married, which of course will lead to people being allowed to marry goats (wouldn't bother me as long as they paid their registration fee and didn't break any other existing laws; in front of anyone and definitely not me) or abortion or what homosexual abortions will lead to :?: ... marijuana and how "well" making it illegal has worked (I hear that homocide, attempted murder, kidnapping, sexual abuse and other things are illegal as well), religion and the "left or right" morality of righteousness: the usual that tends to dominate catch-all political forums and usually with an American "invasion force" to right our lefts.

It's refeshing to see real Canadian political issues being discussed. But it's even more refreshing to see folks being able to express their views, personal attacks are bound to happen (bring politics up at your next big family gathering, new job at the Christmas party ) and they're no big deal but trolling has been pinched and in an approriate way.

It's a tough job. I did a lot of customer relations and moderated a ... "conference" as they were called on PCBoard BBS software back in the olden days (late 80's to 1996) that was tied into other BBS's all over the world, five "conferences"/forums actually, on different "BBS networks" doing tech. support, which has more to do with customer relations/marketing than anything: along with having the answers of course, and "some people", well you know what you want to tell them but it's just not good for PR, word travels fast and it's easy to tell that this site isn't one of those one-line BBS's that some kid set up in his basement to get attention and be a mini-dictator. They almighty "Sysop".

The tyrants didn't tend to last long to get the attention and "power" they craved, and it's no different around web-based BBS's/forums/blogs.

But on top of that, I can't write up conclusions and will never be able to (new people come along) but so far, the folks on this site, what makes a "BBS"/forum/blog what it is, seems to be a good mix and with ample participation (how will anyone have time to read my books!? Actually they're not mine, the sources quoted and given credit, not stolen, because no one has any reason to care about my personal opinion; including myself unless it's around something personal in my own life and open forums aren't usually the best place to discuss personal issues) and a good group of people.

Add moderate (reasonable; and even involved) moderation and what else could anyone want?

Thanks for the positive feedback on moderating.

On the contrary -- thanks for even noticing let alone taking the time out to respond. It' was/is just the simple truth.

I always go straight for the rules/FAQ but then it takes time to see if the admin and/or moderator(s) are even around, are being consistent (personal arguments should be taken to email or pm's; it's what the p stands for in pm but some people don't get it; like if it drags on, a little bit of sniping, "Why don't you go try that on Usenet?" is normal but...) it usually takes time to find out whether a moderator is even around -- or the opposite, they're making it impossible to discuss anything due to their own political views. [I don't tend to frequent recipe boards and the like. ]

It took me only a few hours on this site to see active participation and moderate moderation and it's unusual. Public warnings are more effective than pm's as long as others don't jump on it, which I've seen elsewhere, moderators stepping in to give someone a slap on the wrist then others with "nya nya nya nya nya, I told you so, you JERK!" and then no moderation of that. Like taking sides with people on a personal level, then claiming to be moderators.

And this...

Not only do we try to read what people are writing and post warnings before banning, we also take the time to PM posters and give them the opportunity to express their side of issues. We also confer with each other, and when possible, with Andem, before banning any regulars. That keeps one mod from getting too annoyed and booting someone out of temper.

What is this a democracy or something? It's how professionals tend to do things. Everyone has bad days, everyone regrets saying (or posting) things they don't mean, or that just come out the wrong way (and look very different the next evening ... "did I write that?"), and I've had bad days as a moderator, in PR, at business meetings, but have always had the luxury of knowing it and allowing someone else to take over. It's not easy.

And another thing I've always found strange around discussion forums/blogs, is that what you stated above is kept secret for no apparent reason. The mods discuss things in their hidden forum but no one knows how the system works. The admin should consider putting your explanation in the FAQ. It's great marketing for the site. Keep it up and you'll have to start charging for subscriptions.

We really hate banning people. It is a last resort. That said, there are a few trolls we've come to know and love who we ban on sight, but they've earned the privilege. Anyway, your comments about it are appreciated. Always good to hear how we're doing -- especially when it's positive.

Yep, and it's the same for everything. My Uncle Bob is "banned" from family get-togethers because he's a drunk and causes nothing but trouble, doesn't want help, has made it plain so when he does want help, if ever, it'll be there. But we're usually not relatives on web discussion boards and aren't owed the same courtesies as our Uncle Bob's are.

And please don't appreciate the comments. I mean, well, you know what I mean, I didn't make it up to get 'appreciation', it's the simple truth. I've been around online for quite a long time, on both ends, and the thanks goes to the setup of the site and everything you stated above.

Hope you choose to stay.

That will be up to the ... electorate? If folks want me to and I can be useful, the admin way wish I'd never shown up due to the extra storage space/bandwidth. Who is the admin by the way? Please send my kudos to him/her and all involved, for an unusually sane and well-structured ... possibly new home page. I read a good article on the home page here the other day about God (well said and funny too, but it's an important point); it's not "just" the forums, structure, moderators, and good group of people on the site, a good mix to keep things interesting. And around politics no less. I don't even have body armor or a helmet on. :shock:

Congrats on and good luck with the new job (the real life one).

 

[S-Ranger]

The U.S. military is socialist. Everything in the U.S. is socialist other than healthcare. And they spend the most money per capita of any country in the world on healthcare (personally) but the system certainly doesn't show it. And over 10% of the population has no coverage for healthcare at all.

I am still reading your post, but this one I had to respond to. As was posted by another poster on this forum, the claim about people without healthcare is a bit of a misnomer.

I'd change that to the misnomer is trying to change a fact: 45 million Americans have no health coverage at all and it's been discussed quite thoroughly on other sites (and in the real world). A person I know from Costa Rica who immigrated to Vancouver then to Florida, has a fair bit of cash via the family business and tries to help Hispanics in FLA who end up with catastrophic health problems that put them in the hole for upwards of half million dollars.

A cousin of mine is a pediatric nurse in Texas and the hospital-corporation she works at routinely turns people away, due to no health insurance, claiming that they're full up, because there are other hospitals around that will take them (and bill them; they don't have time to wait, they're about to give birth and with any number of complications but they can also sit around in labor for hours, which costs the hospital-corporation money if the person has no for-profit health insurance).

60 Minutes has put hidden cameras in hospital addmitance/emergency wards and found plenty of American hospital-corporations turning people away claiming they were full (because they had no insurance; not that it's ever stated) and then someone ends up in the same ward a few minutes later, has insurance and is admitted.

This...

There are 1871 community clinics and hospitals, sponsored by the state, in the US that are specifically for people without health care coverage, and are free. The problem as explained by the other poster, was that these generally have waiting lists, while the other hospitals have short or no lists at all, so instead of using the community clinics of hospitals, people without insurance go to the other hospitals, which have to take them, and then the uninsured get a bill. If they went to the community places, waiting times, but no cost.

...is not suitable for catastrophic healthcare, if it's even true. We have waiting lists for things that can wait; not for people who just got shot in the face or were t-boned by a school bus at an intersection (or vice versa) or have a breech birth on their hands or hemoragging, or just had a heart attack, got an arm caught in machinery, etc., etc., and have no time to wait for anything but death if they don't get immediate treatment.

And who was this poster and where is the documentation? There is no need to take anyone's word for anything. I just went to Google and entered +"free clinics" +US

National Association of Free Clinics
Serving Free Clinics and the People They Serve

According to the latest U.S. Census Bureau, 45 million people are without health insurance in this country. That number shows an increase of 1.4 million since the last available figures - and the situation is not improving. In fact, studies show that the total number of people who may be without health coverage in any given year may exceed 75 million individuals! Millions of other individuals are underinsured - lacking sufficient resources to provide for all of their health care needs.

In response to this problem, hundreds of communities across the country have taken it upon themselves to seek a solution, developing and supporting Free Clinics that bring together volunteer health care professionals and other community volunteers to offer free or low cost health care to low-income and impoverished people in their community.

What is a Free Clinic?

Free Clinics are private, non-profit, community based organizations that provide medical, dental, pharmaceutical and/or mental health services at little or no cost to low-income, uninsured and underinsured people. They accomplish this through the use of volunteer health professionals and community volunteers, along with partnerships with other health providers. Each Free Clinic is unique, in that its development and services are based on the particular needs and resources of the local community. Care is made possible through the donation of goods and services, volunteers, and community donations. Funding is generally raised on the local level and there is little if any government funding or support.
...
Become an Associate Member on the corporate or individual level, indicating your support for caring for the uninsured. Click on Contact to learn more about Associate Member opportunities.

Contact the NAFC regarding corporate donations of goods and services that will support community based efforts to care for the uninsured.

Every donation makes a difference, so please consider showing your support for community based efforts to care for the uninsured by contributing to the National Association of Free Clinics today! For more information, contact the NAFC at bbeavers@freeclinics.us

http://www.nafclinics.org/

Hospitals too? Let's see what the web has to say about that one.

Well, check it out for yourself. Lots of smoke-free, asbestos-free this and that, too much to weed through and I back up claims I make and it's not some "rule" but I don't believe anyone about anything unless they have a source and I can also check the validity of the source: if it's public and means anything and could mislead myself or others into believing things that are half-true, a quarter-true, or not true at all.

Ask this "poster" for documentation and where s/he came up with this in specific detail:

"There are 1871 community clinics and hospitals, sponsored by the state, in the US that are specifically for people without health care coverage, and are free."

Which state, paid out of what taxes that aren't collected while the U.S. runs record budget deficits? And what good are they for anyone who has something catastrophic (which is all any provincial plan has to cover -- and with lots of funding [or tax returns in the case of Ontario and often Alberta and Quebec] from the federal government in the Canada Health Transfer/CHT, Health Reform Transfer/HRT, Wait Times Reduction and "The Government of Canada also provides provinces and territories with targeted funding to improve access to publicly funded medical equipment and diagnostic services, and funding to support a national immunization strategy and to assist them in enhancing their public health capacities") that cannot wait, and doesn't wait around our systems. What can wait does wait. I spent 6 hours in a Toronto hospital's emergency ward with a busted/dislocated arm/shoulder, ribs, and it the pain was annoying but I wasn't about to die.

And Toronto speciality hospitals are tied to charities, or they wouldn't exist due to the tax plundering. The above quote stated "with little or no funding by the state," which means that states are providing some funding, but which ones and how much? Where are these 1871 "free" (to patients; nothing is free around healthcare) clincs and even hospitals and what do they have for equipment, what does the American Medical Association have to say about their quality, one by each?

Toronto can get away with speciality hospitals because of all of the people and corporations. It's good marketing (and a tax write off/deduction) for corporations and citizens to donate to charities (connected to hospitals or any other registered charity) but what about in largely deserted areas with no real corporations to speak of, like the Dakotas, Vermont, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Idaho, Rhode Island, Maine, Delaware, W. Virginia, Hawaii, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nebraska, Mississipi, Arkansas and the like?

And outside of the "big cities" in those states?

Even around insurance I know Americans who are stuck in jobs they despise but can't leave because of the group health insurance they get along with having families to look after and others who pay less for insurance but are only covered by specific hospitals or HMO's in their region, so if they have to leave the area for whatever reason, they have health insurance but it's worthless.

It's the purpose of universal healthcare, which the provinces territories run but with minimum standards and services that have to be provided and that are paid for by the distribution of revenues: so that if you have to go on a business trip or whatever in Vancouver, your Alberta health coverage is still good there or anywhere else in the country.

And it will never, ever work if the U.S. tries to leave it up to the states. [It's the next argument an American will come up with; states are free to come up with public healthcare anytime they want to -- sure they are.]

What would happen if California decided to create "public" healthcare (the point being that they're exactly like "public" police and "public" fire departments and the "public" U.S. military, etc., which are not private corporations that people have to buy for-profit insurance for)?

What if other states don't do it because they can't afford to or can't fight off the biomed/biotech lobbies, in Nevada or Oregon or anywhere else in the U.S.? Sick people who pay no taxes in California (whatever state or even states; it's all or none) end up there getting "free" healthcare and bankrupt the system.

It either happens at the federal level with a program similar to ours as in with some form of revenue redistribution to the many, many poor states in the U.S. and poor regions within them; NYC is rich ... Manhatten is, but what about Harlem? or it doesn't happen at all. And we had a hell of a time fighting off the healthcare professionals who obviously want to be able to charge whatever they feel like -- but they're not freaking lawyers. They are no different than police forces and fire departments are -- or militaries for that matter.

I'm sure that the 101st Airborne could turn a profit if it were sold to Microsoft or the like, to eliminate competition and go plunder other countries of whatever. Private investors would have to see the portfolio to find out how the 101st was going to turn a profit; and I'm sure it could.

But saving the lives of Americans, 45 million of them potentially, at any moment, is private and killing them is socialist/public, paid for out of taxes in the military.

I've been through it all with Americans on healthcare. They're being taken for a ride around prescription drugs for one reason: the FDA sets the limit that resellers (buying from biomed corporations) can purchase in bulk. The higher the bulk, the lower the price "per unit". Health Canada does the same but it allows higher bulk purchases.

So the people at the top of the biomed corporations only get to buy ten new Ferrari's a month instead of 20 and another mansion.

They don't have public healthcare for one reason: the federal government is afraid to take on the doctors, just as they're afraid to take on American biomed/biotech corporations. They have very big mouths and can scare the living bejesus out of Americans (just as they tried here; the Canadian ones) and will do whatever it takes to keep their profits, regardless of how many Americans die every year due to no health insurance and not qualifying for medicare.

I am not making judgement one way or another, but there is a safety net for those who have not insurance coverage.

I'm not either nor am I "arguing" for no apparent reason. Some nameless poster says whatever and that's it? Tell the poster that I said ("a poster") that Canadian taxpayers are paying for them all. No need for any facts, just make up anything. Ontario added a surtax for it last year and forced every other province to do the same. Anyone making under $20,000 a year doesn't have to pay for these "free" American clinics and hospitals, $30,000 and under pay $300/year into them, $50,000 and under (gross income) pay $500/year into them, everyone making over $50,000/year pays $900/year into them.

Why? Because we couldn't stand to see the richest country on the planet doing such a horrible job around its citizens and our clinics are in the inner cities of the U.S. and there are no waiting lists because they have catastrophic needs and will die if they have to wait; or will go bankrupt going anywhere else.

45 million Americans, but as yet, we can only cover a few thousand. Perhaps Amnesty International could get involved to help the poor Americans. Maybe Africa could come up with some money for them. Apparently the American territory of Puerto Rico has a good public healthcare system. It's out in the Caribbean, Americans from the continental 48 states can't flock off to the territory and get free healthcare.

I've never looked into the allegation that Puerto Rico even has a public healthcare system let alone a good one that's apparently better than Canada's. An American told me. "A poster." I haven't bothered to check to see whether this "poster" was in a lunatic asylum when it made the post. It's possible. Anything is possible around the Internet; s/he could have been living in Tazmania pretending to be an American. And with $30/month or less or free, could have had an IP address in the U.S. via a proxy. But it was phpBB2 software and didn't show the IP address; not that it really means anything, given that anyone can make it look like they're from anywhere by proxy.

When I have facts in my face I can be very concise. "Thanks for the information." But it'd have to be a comprehensive analysis of each and every one of these free clincs, what services they provide, some qualitative assessment of the quality of equipment and volunteer health professionals, and their results. And they're still useless if they have waiting lists; because they're not covering anything catastrophic with waiting lists.