47

Popular protest


 

Protesters occupied the offices of Conservative MPs in Whitby, Orangeville, Nipissing, Cornwall, Brantford, Brampton, Cambridge and Thunder Bay. Conservative MP Jay Aspin took the opportunity to call for the dismissal of the Parliamentary Budget Officer.

Aspin also attacked the credibility of Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who has said public pensions “are both sound and fiscally sustainable, even in light of the coming retirement of the Baby Boom generation.” Aspin said Page “has absolutely no credibility at all,” and he has “released study after study with no facts, no truth to them. “This guy has got to go,” Aspin said. “It’s too bad he’s in the position he’s in.”


 

Popular protest

  1. One of the MPs staffers called the police and had the peaceful, elderly protesters removed.  What is Canada coming to under these idiots?

    • Yes, how dare these “idiots” expect others to respect private property. The horror! lol

      • Actually your MP’s office is funded by the taxpayer and is intended as a place for constituents to meet with the MP, now isn’t it Dennis? 

        • Of course. But how do you go from there to occupying the place as though it belongs to you personally? It doesn’t.

          • Dennis, you have already conceded the office belongs to constituents in both spirit and intent.  In what way were these elderly, peaceful Canadians acting as though the office belonged to them personally?  Do you really think police services need to be involved in such a mild, peaceful situation? I for one am very concerned that cons call the cops on Canadians like this — waste of the valuable police time, and a real slap in the face to democracy and voters.

          • Where in the world did I concede that the office belongs to constituents “in both spirit and intent?” If someone decides to squat on your property, or in the House of Commons, nobody has the right to call the police on them? I mean, give it a rest.

          • No: you answer my questions first. 

          • Funded by the taxpayer makes it public.
            This isn’t shouldn’t be Singapore, we’re allowed to peaceably gather in public places.

          • a) No, taxpayer funding doesn’t make something public. You can’t walk into a government building, pass security, and squat in a bureaucrat’s office willy-nilly. What’s the matter with you people?

            b) Even in public places, you need permission to hold public protests; permits and such. Unless, of course, you’re doing it outside of an abortion clinic. Then it’s like Singapore. Then you’re not allowed.

    • Did they have to fly out any of the Conservative MPs by army helicopter?

  2. Yes, because a small group of agitators in some Ontario communities constitutes a “popular protest.” Man.

    • Calling that a popular protest is as unreasonable as acting as though having the support of 25% of eligible voters is an overwhelming mandate.

      • Let me get this straight. You put a handful of agitators in the same category as a government that has a majority mandate in a great democracy, and you have the word “logic” in your moniker to boot?

      • Somebody who doesn’t vote is not a “voter”.  That would be a non-voter.  It is impossible to conclude whether you have the support of someone who simply refuses to let you know.  Considering those people who did not vote, it is unknown whether they support the government or not.  Obviously if they did not support the incumbent government, that would be quite an incentive to vote for a different party, yet those people did not.

        Secondly, almost all mandates in Canadian elections have been elected by the votes of about 25% of those eligible to vote.  All elections since 1988 have had less than 30% or less, and that includes 4 majority governments.  The last person to break through 30% was Brian Mulroney in 1988.

        For a logician, logic is not your strong suit.

        • I’ve noticed that about today’s left wing. They think they’re the smartest people in the world, but they hate to be challenged, they love to silence their opponents, are easily exposed in proper debate, and get absolutely furious when it happens.

          Me? I love to debate people. I love to expose the errors of my opponents. And the more formidable the opponent, the better. It’s very stimulating. But not them. Funny that.

          • Yes, you are quite tenacious, which is a requirement for such debates, although for the most part it is difficult to change someone’s mind through debate regardless of the logic employed.

            This 25% figure is nothing more than an attempt to mislead.  It’s an attempt to belittle his opponents, to make them appear fewer in number and to make them appear reaching beyond what is reasonable.  This is simply false.

            In reality, we have an electoral system that is not open to corruption and to gerrymandering or other abuses.  When someone wins, it is legitimate, period, more so than in almost any other country.  Trying to portray a legitimately elected government in such a misleading way is simple disrespect for democracy.  Trying to change the rules to favour your side is also disrespectful, unless of course you were calling for the same when your own side was the victor. In democracy, your side will not always win. 

            Conservatives of the nation had to endure 4 successive Liberal governments including 3 majorities before finally making headway in 2006.  There had not been a conservative majority, or even a non-Liberal majority, in Canada for 19 years until 2011.  The win in 2011 was as legitimate as any other.  It was a long time coming for the 30+% of the population that for 20 years were under-represented in government, who patiently worked and waited until their numbers were finally enough to reach majority territory.  The victory was well deserved.

          • There was a time when I tried to persuade leftists of various persuasions, but I quickly learned that the last thing they generally want is a sincere debate. They prefer to mock and nullify opponents, which is why I tend to use the tactics you see. It’s not them I’m trying to persuade, but anyone who comes along and might otherwise be intimidated by their bullying ways. It’s O.K. to push back, especially with the truth.

            Another thing I learned a long time ago is that sometimes people throw things in during a discussion and the last thing they intended is to make a genuine case for their side. The “Harper as illegitimate” barb is just one example.

            You, of course, provide ample reasons why the argument is bogus. I generally don’t go that far in dealing with such red herrings. Again, they’re not trying to deal with facts or logic, just a perpetuation of their otherwise indefensible agenda. Or at least that’s how it appears to me based on their tactics and attitudes.

          • Yes, I see your point. Dealing with those red herrings may in fact be getting led down the garden path. Perhaps just pushing back is enough to handle those types of “word bullies”.

            I guess that I find that for many people who don’t follow things closely, those red herrings and illogical arguments can eventually become their mantra.

            For instance, take the argument in the US about tax rates on the rich, with the Democrats and media have managed to turn into an ongoing argument. Perhaps there may be an argument about “fairness”, but it’s gone way beyond facts into the realm of absurdities. It got to the point where leftists and moderates and people who do not pay attention actually came to believe that the USA is in fact less progressive than the average western country. They believe it to be true so much that they’re willing to ridicule their opponents. Exhibit A, leftist writer J Chait and his minions:
            http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/02/jonathan-chait-why-im-so-mean.html

            It actually took a fellow leftist magazine to point out the facts, as delivered by the OECD, in plain numbers, that the USA is in fact the most progressive country by any standard definition of the word progressive.

            http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/02/us-taxes-really-are-unusually-progressive/252917/

            Many people simply have no idea of this fact because of all the leftist spin out there on Warren Buffet’s secretary vs Mitt Romney and whatnot. They really believe that in the US the rich are getting a free ride.

            The spin and the red herrings can become conventional wisdom to those who don’t pay close attention.

            Even more so, is the Obama argument that you can fix the US budget problems with taxes on the rich. In reality, any sober analysis easily shows that soaking the rich for up to 70% of incomes above 500k would simply cover just a tenth of the current deficit. A tenth! The other 90% would have to come from everybody else.

            http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2011/04/11/can-taxing-the-rich-erase-the-deficit/

            Anyway, the point is, these falsehoods and red herrings really do become conventional wisdom to the unwary. People I know spout the conventional falsehoods and then I take the time to point out the underlying numbers and the reality.

            It’s sad that such things are really necessary. with the advent of additional outlets like Sun News and all the information on the internet, the spin can be debunked, but unfortunately it never goes away.

  3. These “officers of parliament” can be real nuisance to the government.

    Le Devoir covers these protests.   The MP from Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry,Guy Lauzon claims that any discussion at this point is useless:  «Quand une décision aura été prise, là on pourra avoir une discussion.»   (When a decision has been made, then we will be able to discuss this).

    What’s the point of taking money off my pay if we can’t debate what we want when we want, particularly when it concerns national matters such as Old Age Pension?

    • To suggest that we can only discuss something once a decision on that topic has already been made is idiotic.  Only a Conservative could possibly be taken in by that kind of nonsense–and I have great hope that even there, its only a few of them.  However, OAS is not taken off anyone’s pay.  That’s CPP.

      • So if the proposal to change OAS is not yet on the table, what is there to debate right now anyhow? I said this in another blog post: Some people around here need to find another hobby.

          • You should take a course in logic and reasoning. Or did I miss the part where they have actually tabled a plan to debate?

          • I don’t need o a course in logic and reasoning to understand that this is on the table when my prime minister states in regards to retirement income :  “For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation” .

            If you read by this that he’s talking about new regulations concerning the fiber contents of toilet paper, well good luck to you in your future endeavours.  You’ll need a lot more than a course in logic and reasoning.

          • I think you very much do need a course in logic and reasoning if you’re telling me a plan has been tabled. lol. Next.

          • The prime minister has said it is being considered, right?  Diane Finley seems to think it’s a great idea, right?  And so this is constituent lobbying, and it’s being done at the right time — BEFORE they pass something in the HoC, where we all know they will indeed limit debate from opposition.

            There are only so many ways for Canadians to make their thoughts known, and it seems to me these peaceful, elderly people were doing it in the gentlest way possible! 

            What SHOULD they have done?  Written a letter? 

          • Since when does something “being considered” “a great idea” constitute something being put on the table for debate?

            I haven’t read anywhere that there’s a deluge of elderly people at these illegal protests.

            Some people hate everything Harper does, and applaud anything done in opposition. Like lemmings.

          • You’re being rude and dismissive again.  Does that make you feel manly?

          • You mean I’m right and you can’t take it, which is why you’ve decided to attack me rather than the obviously logical points I’ve raised. Does that make you feel like a child? I hope so.

          • You never answer questions. No answers, just insults. 

          • You just can’t stand being wrong, can you. Stop crying and start trying to come up with a cogent argument if you can. God.

          • To paraphrase a former Con PM, elections aren’t the time to debate substantive issues.

          • And apparently there’s never a good time to debate substantive issues when Steve Harper is on a “mandate.”

        • You know, you aren’t required to prove you are one of the few.  The gullible few, I mean.  The ones that don’t have a critical thought left in their heads after hearing a Conservative talking point. 

          I mean, I wasn’t going to start naming names.

          • I love it when people who can”t defend themselves critically, or understand any points other people make, consider themselves to be an expert in the field. You have to call people names. You aren’t capable of anything else, especially a critical argument. lol. Next.

      • I realize that OAS is not taken off my pay, but MPs salaries are, as are the costs of their constituencies offices.

        • I believe OAS is as well, doesn’t it come from general revenues? That means it’s part of the income tax portion that comes off your pay.

          • Well thank you.  I forgot about that, and I pay a lot of income tax and other taxes.  I paid more in income tax last year, a lot more, than the average Canadian family income.  I don’t expect to collect on OAS but heh, I should remember than I pay for it!

        • You realize that doesn’t mean it’s your salary or your constituency office to do as you please, right?

          • Yes, I realize that.  Are you ageist?  If a plan had been, in parliamentary parlance, “tabled”, I would quote it! 
             Stephen Harper clearly stated in  Davos:  ” For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation”
            He did not say “we are considering making changes”. He said “we will”. Maybe you have to be a senior to understand the difference.  .
             
            He has come to this position after consultation. The changes have been and likely still are being discussed between the political and the civil service. OAS is on the table, open for discussion.  
            I’m surprised that you would be so shocked that some in or approaching retirement age would like to have a word with their MPs about this. 

          • You’re asking me if I’m an ageist because I dare expose your lack of logic on this issue? The better question to ask: Are you an idiot? lol. Next.

  4. “This guy has got to go,” Aspin said. “It’s too bad he’s in the position he’s in.”

    Spoken with the typical arrogance of this government. If an officer of Parliament behaves with the independence that comes with the role, muzzle him/her. If that doesn’t work, starve the operation for funding. If that doesn’t work, fire the incumbent. If that doesn’t work, abolish the office itself.

    No wonder Harper is in China. He’s studying the political culture, the better to emulate it.

  5. Dennis_F – if you insist:  Are you an idiot?

    • I guess your answer to my question is yes. Thank you. Come again.

      • Indeed, I checked, you know French being my first language, Oxford says this:

        on the table
        offered for discussion: our offer remains on the You claim that I wrote that a plan for OAS had been tabled. I never wrote such thing.  I know the difference between tabled in parliamentary parlance and on the table as in open for discussion. Please retract.If Stephen Harper had no idea that by announcing in Davos that “we will’ make changes to the retirement pension programs he would open this up for discussion among Canadians, then he is even more idiotic than you.

        • First of all, governments of all stripes say they’re going to do something, then they pull back. Look up McGuinty for the past number of years, especially on gas-powered electric plants, or even Obama on his most recent attempt to force contraception on religious organizations.

          Second of all, please tell me what specific OAS proposals from the Harper government it is that you want us all to debate. I look forward to your response. Thank you.

Sign in to comment.