socialist or not?

[dmens]

Originally posted by: canadageek

Originally posted by: dmens
Read it. Now.

It's amazing how some people will still believe in socialist bs even after all that's happened in the past century.

so what's so bad about canada's socialist policies? i break my arm, i get it fixed up for (almost) free!

Check it.

When I broke my arm 12 years ago, I waited so long the surgeon had to rebreak it and set it correctly because the bone started to heal incorrectly. Thank God I now live in the US.

My uncle is one of the few neurologists left in Ontario and he's told me dozens of "free healthcare" horror stories. And it only costs about 35% to 40% of total federal tax revenues to sustain this crappy system.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Canada == Socialism
Bush government == 'National Socialism' (well, closer to a Taliban clone than to Nazis, but still)

LOL. Care to give examples?

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: dmens

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Canada == Socialism
Bush government == 'National Socialism' (well, closer to a Taliban clone than to Nazis, but still)

LOL. Care to give examples?

Allowing torture to extract information, sending people to other countries to have them tortured there, holding people without trial and refusing them a lawyer, making up new rules to counter a judge's decision, threatening several countries in the 'fight against terrorism' instead of actually taking out Al Qaida (as Bush is friends with Bin Laden's family that shouldn't surprise anyone), forcing their religious views on others, etc.

 

[AFB]

Originally posted by: canadageek
today i heard some people refer to canada as a red country....
simply because we have, amongst other things, socialized health car.
what do you guys think?

I think the PC term is "Social"
e.g., Social Democracy.

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: daveshel
Don't get too hung up on the names of ploitical systems - they usually don't live up to their billing. Communism wouldn't have such a bad rap if it wasn't for Stalinism, and Castro's version is closer to capitalism than anything Marx envisioned. The map does not closely correspond with the territory, so you are really just mincing words.

Yeah, except for that whole part about people being kept intentionally POOR and prosecuted by the THOUSANDS for having the gall to voice an OPINION about the state of their nation's government. Other than that, yeah, just like Capitalists. :roll:

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: wchou
communism is not evil and it has never existed where everyone benefits
no profits involved, all shared equally
I hate capitalism cause it sucks to be poor
The rich prefer it that way cause they enjoy eploiting weak minded and less intelligent people.

Yeah, we might as well have Communism so that *everyone* can be poor together, right?

When you have Communism you have NO property rights. Without property rights there can be no such thing as any other rights of any kind

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: gordanfreeman
im not an expert on the subject, but as far as i am concerned, the only problem w/ socialist/communist states is human nature, not the structure of the state itself.

Think about that statement for a moment. I'm sure you can find the immense flaw in the logic.

Jason

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex

Originally posted by: wchou
communism is not evil and it has never existed where everyone benefits
no profits involved, all shared equally
I hate capitalism cause it sucks to be poor
The rich prefer it that way cause they enjoy eploiting weak minded and less intelligent people.

Yeah, we might as well have Communism so that *everyone* can be poor together, right?

When you have Communism you have NO property rights. Without property rights there can be no such thing as any other rights of any kind

Jason

And in the US ypu have property rights, but all human rights are ignored once the government decides they want some information from you.

 

[CanOWorms]

I think it's ok to an extent. One problem I have with socialized healthcare such as Canada's is that it prefers the social elite over everyone else. The elites benefit the most - they get preferential health care over anyone else, and they get non-elites to pay for it while they're waiting in line dying.

The problem I have with it in Europe is that they regularly deny minorities healthcare access, trying to exterminate them so that they can have a Hitler-like vision of a pure race/country. The ultra far-right has hijacked the system, starting yet another genocide in Europe hidden under the guise of healthcare.

 

[dmens]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
And in the US ypu have property rights, but all human rights are ignored once the government decides they want some information from you.

How awful. The extraordinary amount of restraint shown by the American government is hampering our fight against the Islamofascists. If you lefties really cared about human rights you'd be condemning these childkillers. Or are they freedom fighters. You decide.

 

[canadageek]

Jason[/quote]

And in the US ypu have property rights, but all human rights are ignored once the government decides they want some information from you.[/quote]

and lets not forget the "patriot act" either...

y'know, i was just thinking...wouldn't it be nice to have a perfectly neutral media? no more complaints about left/right wing media propaganda....just....news....wouldn't that be refreshing?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: canadageek

Jason

And in the US ypu have property rights, but all human rights are ignored once the government decides they want some information from you.[/quote]

and lets not forget the "patriot act" either...

y'know, i was just thinking...wouldn't it be nice to have a perfectly neutral media? no more complaints about left/right wing media propaganda....just....news....wouldn't that be refreshing?[/quote]

Lots of countries have their own versions somewhat similar to the Patriot Act.

 

[dmens]

That awful Patriot Act.

Orwellian? Think again.

Sometimes I think the real reason lefties hate the Patriot Act is because it has the word "patriot" in it.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: dmens
That awful Patriot Act.

Orwellian? Think again.

Sometimes I think the real reason lefties hate the Patriot Act is because it has the word "patriot" in it.

You realize you're an idiot, right?

I particularly liked the 'straight talk' article. No spin there

If (from the other thread) you really think America isn't doing enough to protect itself from terrorists, I presume you support a totalitarian police state; that would certinaly provide maximum protection from terrorists.

And hey, at least you could still call it America.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: canadageek

Jason

And in the US ypu have property rights, but all human rights are ignored once the government decides they want some information from you.[/quote]

and lets not forget the "patriot act" either...

y'know, i was just thinking...wouldn't it be nice to have a perfectly neutral media? no more complaints about left/right wing media propaganda....just....news....wouldn't that be refreshing?[/quote]

I think I should add some more to this statement. What do you feel about C-36?

 

[imported_Tango]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

The problem I have with it in Europe is that they regularly deny minorities healthcare access, trying to exterminate them so that they can have a Hitler-like vision of a pure race/country. The ultra far-right has hijacked the system, starting yet another genocide in Europe hidden under the guise of healthcare.

LOL.. what's this? a sci-fiction movie?

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
I think I should add some more to this statement. What do you feel about C-36?

c-36 linky

A Superior Court judge will still have to approve the use of electronic surveillance to ensure that these powers are used appropriately. Further, the requirement to notify a target after surveillance has taken place can be delayed for up to three years.

This concerns me; there is due process because judicial approval is needed, but delay of notification is always a transgression of rights; this bill allows for very long-term (up to a year for a single authorization) surveillance of suspected terrorist groups.

So the question is, does the state bear a sufficient burden for prooving suspicion to ensure this surveillance is not easy to conduct against anyone.

The Criminal Code will be amended to create a "preventive arrest" power to impose conditions of release where appropriate on suspected terrorists. This will prevent terrorist activity and protect the lives of Canadians. This will allow a peace officer to arrest and bring a person before a judge to impose reasonable supervisory conditions if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is about to commit a terrorism activity. A warrant will be required except where exigent circumstances exist, and the person will have to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of an arrest. This will require the consent of the Attorney General.

I'd like to see specific limits on how long such 'preventative arrest' can be maintained; the requirement to appear before a judge within 24 hours is useful, at least. Once again, I would like to know what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

 

[artikk]

not socialist

 

[StageLeft]

Not close. However, it is too much, and I think Canada as a whole needs to adopt a less socialist whiny bitch mentality.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie
This concerns me; there is due process because judicial approval is needed, but delay of notification is always a transgression of rights; this bill allows for very long-term (up to a year for a single authorization) surveillance of suspected terrorist groups.

So the question is, does the state bear a sufficient burden for prooving suspicion to ensure this surveillance is not easy to conduct against anyone.

The Criminal Code will be amended to create a "preventive arrest" power to impose conditions of release where appropriate on suspected terrorists. This will prevent terrorist activity and protect the lives of Canadians. This will allow a peace officer to arrest and bring a person before a judge to impose reasonable supervisory conditions if there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the person is about to commit a terrorism activity. A warrant will be required except where exigent circumstances exist, and the person will have to be brought before a judge within 24 hours of an arrest. This will require the consent of the Attorney General.

I'd like to see specific limits on how long such 'preventative arrest' can be maintained; the requirement to appear before a judge within 24 hours is useful, at least. Once again, I would like to know what constitutes reasonable suspicion.

Yes, I find it to be very troubling - especially since many people do not seem to realize that their own countries have passed items very similar to the Patriot Act. Perhaps its (C-36) name is not silly enough to generate enough conversation and debate.

Here is an additional link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3695/is_200201/ai_n9061615

I believe that C-36 also did not have a sunset clause at the time of its passing - making it far worse than the original Patriot Act at the time.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yes, I find it to be very troubling - especially since many people do not seem to realize that their own countries have passed items very similar to the Patriot Act.

Here is an additional link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3695/is_200201/ai_n9061615

I believe that C-36 also did not have a sunset clause at the time of its passing - making it far worse than the original Patriot Act at the time.

What surprises me is that Canada already had provisions for suspending rights under the War Measures Act: arbitrary imprisonment, etc.

To be honest, I prefer the War Measures Act to legislation, because it needs public announcement (essentially a martial law announcement), and it can't persist forever. It essentially provides the government with tools to manage an active crisis, but not to conduct continuous espionage against its own citizens.

From my reading of C-36, it leaves more of the traditional 'due process' in place than did the Patriot Act, but I too would have liked to see a mandatory review date and/or sunset clause for the law.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Yes, I find it to be very troubling - especially since many people do not seem to realize that their own countries have passed items very similar to the Patriot Act.

Here is an additional link:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3695/is_200201/ai_n9061615

I believe that C-36 also did not have a sunset clause at the time of its passing - making it far worse than the original Patriot Act at the time.

What surprises me is that Canada already had provisions for suspending rights under the War Measures Act: arbitrary imprisonment, etc.

To be honest, I prefer the War Measures Act to legislation, because it needs public announcement (essentially a martial law announcement), and it can't persist forever. It essentially provides the government with tools to manage an active crisis, but not to conduct continuous espionage against its own citizens.

From my reading of C-36, it leaves more of the traditional 'due process' in place than did the Patriot Act, but I too would have liked to see a mandatory review date and/or sunset clause for the law.

Perhaps a Sunset clause was recently amended into C-36 as I know there was a large group supporting such an amendment.

I do know that one problem with C-36 that people have or had was its overly broad definitions of terrorists or terrorism. It is basically an abomination, somewhere near the level of the original Patriot Act. However, I am not sure how each would be weighed in its current state with recent passing of other items. I suspect the US would be in worse shape.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Perhaps a Sunset clause was recently amended into C-36 as I know there was a large group supporting such an amendment.

I do know that one problem with C-36 that people have or had was its overly broad definitions of terrorists or terrorism. It is basically an abomination, somewhere near the level of the original Patriot Act. However, I am not sure how each would be weighed in its current state with recent passing of other items. I suspect the US would be in worse shape.

I'm not sure, it's something I haven't followed as closely as I should. Broad definitions are definitely a problem with any such legislation (points laser at a NJ man)

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Tango

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

The problem I have with it in Europe is that they regularly deny minorities healthcare access, trying to exterminate them so that they can have a Hitler-like vision of a pure race/country. The ultra far-right has hijacked the system, starting yet another genocide in Europe hidden under the guise of healthcare.

LOL.. what's this? a sci-fiction movie?

No, it's a documentary.

 

[EXman]

Hillary Clinton is the Senator Canada.

why is socialism good?

just curios why 54 peeps thought so unless they were being sarcastic like myself...