...are being asked to stay away from terms like Mr., Mrs., father and mother | Page 8 | GTAMotorcycle.com

...are being asked to stay away from terms like Mr., Mrs., father and mother

Mad Mike said:
My house and car are investments - buying a house 25 years ago saves me money today, and I need my car for work -- also makes money. I have credit cards, I've never spent next years salary today -- especially on wants not needs.

Finally, I can't double my debt load every 10 years.

On your infrastructure spend... yes of course there is spending. We're spending about 9% of revenue on Infrastructure -- remember that's a glom of new and maintain, not an infrastructure spending spree. By the way, when I say glom, Liberals roll up deferred maintenance and repairs, cost of rehabbing neglected infrastructure into their 'Infrastructure' numbers. Those are funds stolen from prior years to expand social spending... but that an argument for another day.
Click to expand...

News to me that infrastructure isn't an investment, and in fact that top driver of economic development. News to me that historic large scale investments in capital projects aren't done with debt in literally every OECD country. It's only obvious that deferred maintenance and repairs need capital spend so of course that spend would be counted. Is a pothole not worth fixing because it wasn't fixed the year before? What kind of stupid argument is that?

It's also beyond obvious that you've leveraged yourself with the house on a want, not a need. A need for housing could have been filled with a rented apartment and it would've been within your monthly budget. You leveraged up on debt so you could buy a house, not because it was a need, but because it was a want and it coincided with an investment opportunity. By your logic and that of a couple of other posters in here, you should've lived in rented apartments until you had the amount to buy your house all out, so you wouldn't find yourself in 500k worth of debt on a 50k income (assumed figures but w/e...). That's not to say it was a bad investment, but the "debt is bad but my house is an need/investment so it's fine" argument doesn't hold water; the overwhelming majority of the federal provincial budgets meets that criteria.

The implication that the provincial government has been spending on wants rather than under pressure from various economic/political/social factors is asinine.

Your post should have just said "Yes, Type17, we are indeed in a period of historic infrastructure spend as indicated at the top of the first link you provided, in size 32 font. I indeed did not know this and was instead parroting conservative talking points without having done the googling myself."

But hey, I know. It takes a big man to admit they were wrong, it's easier to move the goal posts.
 
Last edited:
Type17 said:
News to me that infrastructure isn't an investment, and in fact that top driver of economic development. News to me that historic large scale investments in capital projects aren't done with debt in literally every OECD country. It's only obvious that deferred maintenance and repairs need capital spend so of course that spend would be counted. Is a pothole not worth fixing because it wasn't fixed the year before? What kind of stupid argument is that?

It's also beyond obvious that you've leveraged yourself with the house on a want, not a need. A need for housing could have been filled with a rented apartment and it would've been within your monthly budget. You leveraged up on debt so you could buy a house, not because it was a need, but because it was a want and it coincided with an investment opportunity. By your logic and that of a couple of other posters in here, you should've lived in rented apartments until you had the amount to buy your house all out, so you wouldn't find yourself in 500k worth of debt on a 50k income (assumed figures but w/e...). That's not to say it was a bad investment, but the "debt is bad but my house is an need/investment so it's fine" argument doesn't hold water; the overwhelming majority of the federal provincial budgets meets that criteria.

The implication that the provincial government has been spending on wants rather than under pressure from various economic/political/social factors is asinine.

Your post should have just said "Yes, Type17, we are indeed in a period of historic infrastructure spend as indicated at the top of the first link you provided, in size 32 font. I indeed did not know this and was instead parroting conservative talking points without having done the googling myself."

But hey, I know. It takes a big man to admit they were wrong, it's easier to move the goal posts.
Click to expand...
I never see a point in your babble. I thing we ought to wait and see what the proletariat says on June 7.
 
Mad Mike said:
I never see a point in your babble.
Click to expand...
Hahah okay pal. You tried, you didn't know what you were talking about, and you were told. No need to be mad at me, next time just read up on the things you opine on.


Mad Mike said:
I thing we ought to wait and see what the proletariat says on June 7.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant to what we were discussing. I wasn't debating the election with you, you picked a financial topic. I make my living in finance and it's obvious that you don't.

Toodles
 
Never try talking sense in liberal!
 
Type17 said:
Excellent analysis, as per usual.

Had 7 words you wanted to say and you still ****ed it up.
Click to expand...
English is not my first language. I think I did ok
 
Never argue with a liberal...
 
RockerGuy said:
English is not my first language. I think I did ok
Click to expand...

As a thought or perhaps as grammatically correct? I would not worry about your english, since there's probably more of us with ESL than not ... but the thought is where it counts ... the thought ... LOL
 
JavaFan said:
there is no free exchange of ideas anymore
Click to expand...

I still think there can be, but admittedly it's difficult. The age of spin has made it possible for anyone to point to articles on the same topic but with polar opposite takes. I think a lot of that free exchange of ideas is mainly reserved for academic/professional settings where there are strict norms to constructing and supporting arguments, and strict metrics by which to support your points. Without those guidelines, people just revert to hyperbole and ad-hominem attacks.

I've never been called a "liberal" up until this thread, and I didn't think it'd happen due to taking the Bay St. view on debt or for saying "who cares" to this pronoun crap... This is just creep of US style political tribalism.

In any case, I hope it wasn't me that is seen to be on the fringes here... I actually see most of my views as very vanilla....
 
^^
although I quoted RG
did not intend to indicate anyone in specific, yourself included, 17

and agree, this is American political tribalism come north
and I don't like it one bit

example of this is the Senate and Bill C45
appears the Cons were saber rattling
when they made the announcement they would obstruct in every way possible
as it is not their position to support government legislation

and it certainly is not their position to blindly oppose legislation based strictly on party lines

if we don't check this crap
we're gonna end up with likes of Ted Cruz, Mitch McConnell....et all
party hacks that are completely unable to govern
 
JavaFan said:
this illuminates part of the problem
discussing anything
with anyone whom those on the fringes disagree
is automatically seen as an argument



there is no free exchange of ideas anymore
Click to expand...

Fact is there are more people then you think in the "fringes" and the numbers that come out and vote this June will surprise you.
 
'Free exchange of ideas' (more simply known as free speech) when reserved to academia, professional, and political discussions exists in a class society, not ours. We have freedom of speech which enables the exchange without rules of norms by anyone.

The difficult part of all this is the extremes tens to use it to defend nonsense (racism, fundamentals of religion on the right and for the tagging of radicals as a means of dismissal from the left). Anonymity, such as press, social media and discussion forums, also distorts the discussions because it allows some to punch way above their weight AND it brings out insincere views from many who simply enjoy the sport in agitating others.

Realistic exchanges happen between reasonable people every day, less so when done through the anonymity of a forum or even the press. I'll bet to opposing posters on this sight would have a much better exchange face to face.
 
Mad Mike said:
Realistic exchanges happen between reasonable people every day, less so when done through the anonymity of a forum or even the press. I'll bet to opposing posters on this sight would have a much better exchange face to face.
Click to expand...

your absolutely correct, do people really come to a motorcycle forum looking for complete and transparent political discussion? Olympic wrestling and WWE and stripper bar jello pits are all wrestling.......you cant take them all seriously.
 
crankcall said:
your absolutely correct, do people really come to a motorcycle forum looking for complete and transparent political discussion? ...
Click to expand...
No, they don't come here specifically for that, but that doesn't mean a serious discussion can't be had. In an anonymous setting it can be hard to know who is serious and who just likes the jello wrestling.
 
Mad Mike said:
'Free exchange of ideas' (more simply known as free speech) when reserved to academia, professional, and political discussions exists in a class society, not ours. We have freedom of speech which enables the exchange without rules of norms by anyone.

The difficult part of all this is the extremes tens to use it to defend nonsense (racism, fundamentals of religion on the right and for the tagging of radicals as a means of dismissal from the left). Anonymity, such as press, social media and discussion forums, also distorts the discussions because it allows some to punch way above their weight AND it brings out insincere views from many who simply enjoy the sport in agitating others.

Realistic exchanges happen between reasonable people every day, less so when done through the anonymity of a forum or even the press. I'll bet to opposing posters on this sight would have a much better exchange face to face.
Click to expand...
So are you an actual Conservative or are you a liberal posing as a conservative so you can gauge the reaction of everyone?
 
^^

MM shares some reasonable thinking
about the concept of free exchange of ideas
and has his Con credentials challenged

can't make this up
 
RockerGuy said:
So are you an actual Conservative or are you a liberal posing as a conservative so you can gauge the reaction of everyone?
Click to expand...
I'm a card carrying PC, I have conservative views by Canadian standards -- on the line between Red and Blue Tory. I'd have trouble deciding between Harper and Creitien or Davis and Peterson. I'd always pick Tory over Miller, Harper over Trudeau, Ford over Wynne.

(Despite my prior post, I am literate and I can spel).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom