The "LOLCANADA" thread...again
So what's new?
I've noticed the Liberals are now ahead in all major polls and Trudeau hasn't even started to campaign yet
Pablito's policy position is that immigration should be slashed by over 80%, at least from his target: Indians. I don't know about other nationalities. That sounds like massively restricted to me. Maybe that isn't your position so let me ask: Do you think we should substantially lower immigration beneath, say, prepandemic levels?
Why were you in favor of massively increasing immigration?
You don't get to argue for mass immigration, then claim Carney had to cut immigration to win an election then blame the recession on anyone who was not in favor of mass immigration.
Is this your weird way of talking about basic sex ed like condoms and the birth control pill in schools?
If so, weird.
Why do you guys just have to be so ****ing weird with everything?
No. There was a large government funded program to lower birth rates because they were worried about overpopulation and limited resource (horribly wrong btw).
What's the difference if they fund programs because they are worried about low birth rates?
I'm not sure what you want me to answer here. I've said I'm obviously for this. Affordable daycare is huge, it's just a small piece of the entire puzzle. People can not afford to live right now. Giving them affordable daycare is great, it doesn't address the fact that a box of diapers is $20 more expensive than 7 years ago when I had my first kid or the fact that formula has do
"Affordable" daycare is a joke.
The goal should be how do get back to a place where both parents aren't forced to work. Sure some women want the career, but I guarantee a large % of women dropping their 9 months old off at daycare for 8 hour days to be raised by strangers feel a ton of guilt.
Why were you in favor of massively increasing immigration?
You don't get to argue for mass immigration, then claim Carney had to cut immigration to win an election then blame the recession on anyone who was not in favor of mass immigration.
The same reason as the bipartisan consensus post covid. Basically in around 2021 there was a massive labour supply shock across Canada - hitting a quarter million job vacancies. You'll remember industry after industry really struggling to get people to fill positions. So as a result there was quite a lot of clamouring to try and get more TFW into Canada, more skilled immigration, and these calls were not just affected industry but conservatives like doug ford and erin o'toole. However, I think there is now an equally strong bipartisan consensus that the liberals overcorrected for those legitimate labour shortage. I was never in favour of "massively" increasing immigration per se, my basic view is quite technocratic that we should have steady increases of immigration that ebbs and flows in the absolute numbers in part based on demands of the labour market.
No. There was a large government funded program to lower birth rates because they were worried about overpopulation and limited resource (horribly wrong btw).
What program are you talking about specifically? Can you share a link?
"Affordable" daycare is a joke.
The goal should be how do get back to a place where both parents aren't forced to work. Sure some women want the career, but I guarantee a large % of women dropping their 9 months old off at daycare for 8 hour days to be raised by strangers feel a ton of guilt.
Do a large % of men not feel a ton of guilt? Why are you only focused on women who might want a career?
Why were you in favor of massively increasing immigration? You don't get to argue for mass immigration, then claim Carney had to cut immigration to win an election then blame the recession on anyone who was not in favor of mass immigration. No. There was a large government funded program to lower birth rates because they were worried about overpopulation and limited resource (
What program is that a classified one by CSIS
Here is the reality many young couples cant afford a home let alone bring a child into the world .
I think there are many more same sex couples (nothing wrong with that Uke) and they tend to not have children.
Many couples are having infertility issues
Also I think less people having sex. Social media and porn have led to that
Is shifty trying to bring like 1970s family planning into the conversation????
Do a large % of men not feel a ton of guilt? Why are you only focused on women who might want a career?
If the mother of their child expresses that guilt I would assume yes they would feel guilty for not being able to provide more. But mother's grow, birth, and breastfeed the baby, their maternal instincts are totally different than the fathers paternal instincts.
The goal should be how do get back to a place where both parents aren't forced to work. Sure some women want the career, but I guarantee a large % of women dropping their 9 months old off at daycare for 8 hour days to be raised by strangers feel a ton of guilt.
I know there is often talk about getting back to the good old days where Dad worked and Mom stayed at home (if she wished) and people were still able to manage.
I grew up in the 60s and 70s and would consider myself a product of a lower/middle class upbringing. My parents lived in an apartment with 3 kids for the first 10 years, and then were able to buy a small house that needed work and that is where I happily grew up. We had no car until I was about 17 - public transit was how we got around. No vacations and lots of 2nd hand stuff like bikes, etc. I shoveled snow for some spending money and got a job as a stock boy at 16. Not complaining in any way. I was never hungry. Sure, I wanted converse and Levi jeans, but wore "North stars" instead...lol
When I went to high school there was quite a cross-section of incomes. There was lower class (some in Public Housing and on social assistance), lower/middle class. middle class , and upper middle class and higher. I had friends whose dads were laborers and friends whose dads were doctors, dentists, business owners, etc.
If I was to sum things up though, unless you were upper class or upper middle class, there were very few families I remember who had it both ways. That is, having a dad working, a family car, vacations, could afford nice clothes for all the kids, sports equipment, etc, and also had mom at home.
My point is that if we go back in time to the good old days in Canada, I think the % of people who actually had it "good" in "the good old days" on one income may not be much different than it is today.
I get that we may assign different parameters to "middle class" now than we did in the 70's. But regardless, if we try and compare the number of families able to get by on one income now, versus then, I wonder if the % is any different?
Shifty, I am not suggesting that you overestimate the % of people who did ok on one income in the past. Your post just got me thinking about it.
If the mother of their child expresses that guilt I would assume yes they would feel guilty for not being able to provide more.
Why do you only list mother here? If a father expresses guilty would you assume yes they would guilty for not being able to provide more? Your statement is totally vacuous, which makes it particularly weird you only list the mother.
But mother's grow, birth, and breastfeed the baby, their maternal instincts are totally different than the fathers paternal instincts.
Ok. So your uh.....view.....is that mothers feel guilty dropping their kids off at daycare but fathers don't?
There is bunch of weird generational stuff like this. I could easily afford converse and levi's for my kids today and am objectively much "richer" than my parents were raising me, but also they had a half acre property in a nice part of town and a big house and a cabin on a lake. So my parents would never do a vacation on a plane or eat out or buy new clothes and were in consumer debt through our teens, and those are now all pretty "easy" to afford for us, but feels like we'd need a million+ to upgrade to their level real estate.
I know there is often talk about getting back to the good old days where Dad worked and Mom stayed at home (if she wished) and people were still able to manage.I grew up in the 60s and 70s and would consider myself a product of a lower/middle class upbringing. My parents lived in an apartment with 3 kids for the first 10 years, and then were able to buy a small house that neede
It would def be an interesting comparison.
I've made(and saved) infinitely more money than my father ever made, who was a factory worker and my mother never had a full-time job as she spent most of my youth raising me and my 2 siblings and I don't think my life is much better now compared to my dad. I certainly don't feel I have the same purchasing power, I just have more actual dollars lol.
We did absolutely everything on that 1 income + owned a home that they paid off in 9 years I believe. Me and my siblings were in multiple sports all throughout my youth. Hell, between my 2 boys, we probably spend about $500/month on sports alone and they're 5 and 7.
I grew up in the 90s, not sure how different that is from the 70s.
Why do you only list mother here? If a father expresses guilty would you assume yes they would guilty for not being able to provide more? Your statement is totally vacuous, which makes it particularly weird you only list the mother.
No it isn't. Throughout history and nature women/females are the primary nurturer for enfants.
Ok. So your uh.....view.....is that mothers feel guilty dropping their kids off at daycare but fathers don't?
Deep down yes. I am sure some fathers do, but not as much as mothers.
Shifty, I am not suggesting that you overestimate the % of people who did ok on one income in the past. Your post just got me thinking about it.
That was a choice your parents made. I am sure your mother could have worked if she wanted to and you could have had more. Problem is today too many parents don't have that choice and are forced to work.
[QUOTE=Shifty]No. There was a large government funded program to lower birth rates because they were worried about overpopulation and limited resource (horribly wrong btw).[/QUOTE]
Buddy are you ever going to tell us what this was? I'm guessing it's a 1970s program but I'm super curious now!
No it isn't. Throughout history and nature women/females are the primary nurturer for enfants.
Deep down yes. I am sure some fathers do, but not as much as mothers.
This is so like....weird to me. It's not like I'm claiming it's 100% wrong, certainly there are aggregate gender differences I don't think anyone is denying this. But I've got young kids and most of my social circle is young dual working parents and it's like droning on about how only mothers might feel regret at daycare but fathers don't it's just a weird lens to focus on in 2026. You've got kids too so maybe Albertan parents talk about this all the time. I don't know. Maybe it's culture. But it sure comes of weird to me.
This is so like....weird to me. It's not like I'm claiming it's 100% wrong, certainly there are aggregate gender differences I don't think anyone is denying this. But I've got young kids and most of my social circle is young dual working parents and it's like droning on about how only mothers might feel regret at daycare but fathers don't it's just a weird lens to focus on in 2
I never said men don't. But men don't grow, birth and breastfeed enfants. It's a totally different bond between a mother and her baby.
i mean its not just the 70's its how families existed for a half a million years. Everyone knows women in the 40 hour a week work force is the leading factor of population decline. but that one can't go back in the bag.
There’s something beyond that though. Canada women labour force participation has barely moved from 58% in 1990 to 61% today. But fertility dropped.
Shifty claimed a specific government program about population control and now refuses to tell us what he is referring to so I’m only guessing it was something from the 1970s.
There’s something beyond that though. Canada women labour force participation has barely moved from 58% in 1990 to 61% today. But fertility dropped.
What are you suggesting then? Why do you think fertility rates have dropped.
Shifty claimed a specific government program about population control and now refuses to tell us what he is referring to so I’m only guessing it was something from the 1970s.
Because they did? Your whole shtick is that you think it's "mansplaining" to tell women to embrace motherhood and it's importance. But not "mansplaining" to teach them about contraception and family planning. Or that men can become women by wearing a dress and chopping their nuts off.
Because they did? Your whole shtick is that you think it's "mansplaining" to tell women to embrace motherhood and it's importance. But not "mansplaining" to teach them about contraception and family planning. Or that men can become women by wearing a dress and chopping their nuts off.
LMAO. Did you really get so desperately confused you thought basic sex ed to kids about using condoms was "population control"?!?!
LMAO social conservatives are so ****ing hilarious.
And this obsession with "chopping their nuts off" is just ****ing weird. I'm sorry trans people gross you out or whatever, but this obsession with talking about their genitalia is weird.
There's so many layers here I can't even keep it in one post. There's something very creepily saccharine about "telling women to embrace motherhood". Education is not about telling people how to live their lives. It isn't using Big Government to impose your social view that women should embrace motherhood over other life paths. Provide students with basic sex ed info and let them use that information to make their own life choices sure, but having a dude on his keyboard droning about how we need to tell women to be mothers? Ya, I'm sticking with mansplaining.
LMAO. Did you really get so desperately confused you thought basic sex ed to kids about using condoms was "population control"?!?!
Nope, you are making things up again. Are you suggesting there wasn't a coordinated effort because governments believed overpopulation and limited resources/food were a threat?
And this obsession with "chopping their nuts off" is just ****ing weird. I'm sorry trans people gross you out or whatever, but this obsession with talking about their genitalia is weird.
Call it whatever you want. It's still weird you have no issue with that but are clutching your pearls about motherhood.
Nope, you are making things up again. Are you suggesting there wasn't a coordinated effort because governments believed overpopulation and limited resources/food were a threat?
One sec wtf you ARE talking about some 1970s program???
LMAO
You can't be real.
Sure, link to this program so we can evaluate it.
Call it whatever you want. It's still weird you have no issue with that but are clutching your pearls about motherhood.
I get that you anti-trans culture warriors like inserting conversations of trans people's genitals into random conversations, but I guess my real question here is why are all your posts only about Big Government telling women they should embrace motherhood. Have you considered telling men they should embrace fatherhood while you impose your cultural views through the power of an overreaching government?
