|
VR Cowboy posted:Posted in the last half-hour of the old thread: Bring on the Senate abolishment cries! Even in the CBC comments. Yay!
|
#
¿
May 30, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:I would cede Alberta to the Americans in a heartbeat. Canada goes broke. Seriously though, you could say that about most major primary resource provinces in pretty much any country so no exception to any rules there. Ceciltron posted:
It's late so I won't dive into the argument completely as to why and whatever but the short answer is yes. The monarchy is a huge thing to a bunch of Canadians who identify as 'monarchists'. They are a pretty powerful movement in terms of political power but realize there position is tenuous at best and downright stupid at worst in most cases. That being said they are usually a key pickup for the Conservative side. Though largely I think that the type of people who self identify as monarchists are pro-con anyway. \/\/ yea lets give it to the Americans, that's a good idea. Alberta only effects Canada as long as voters are apathetic, dumb, and unwilling to put the time and effort into winning elections. People have the power to change things if they get off their rear end during elections and work like dogs. I swear when I was in university it was a dime a dozen people who wanted NDP governments but come election time they were chilling at home while I was CPC door knocking. It always pissed me off because I legitimately agree with some of their viewpoints but if you want to change things you can't just toss out lengthy diatribes you need to do something's about it and galvanize the voters. Also free from what - please say the Dutch disease so I can laugh a but before I head to bed. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 05:03 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 04:56
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:Free from fire-saleing our natural resources and pretending that's a long term solution to economic problems? Oh well that is an argument about the CPC and their goals for the area get The New Democratic Party Government elected and let's see if that happens your argument isn't about Alberta it's about the current government. Unless of course you're trying to argue that having natural resources in a country is by definition a bad thing and that we should send it to the United States because they have a better track record of dealing with them.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 05:08
|
|
|
But that is exactly it there are examples of natural resources money in the field of oil being used effectively Norway being one of those examples. Regardless any talk of giving Alberta to the US is hilarious so I suppose serious talk wasn't a very good idea. That being said let's also give them our freshwater lakes. Darn I need to go to sleep now  As an aside I did enjoy the talk honestly I do find it interesting when I have a chance to talk to people whose economic theories and ideas are way different than mine.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 05:15
|
|
|
Point of order: Sorry about he punctuation last night I think you guys eventually got to my somewhat hard to understand point (largely because of punctuation) but I was driving home from the office and my phone doesn't insert punctuation when I talk to it. My fault.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Way to go, Mark Carney. The fact that you took the only ethnic minority ever to prominently feature on a Canadian banknote (pretty sure there was a black kid playing hockey on one of the old 5s or 10s though) off that banknote sure does mean you're representing all Canadians with that decision. I'm not arguing for or against this for the record because it was a nightmare to hear about when I was working in an office that had to deal with it. But the irony is the worst loving part was the major reason that is was changed was the chatter from other minority ethnic stakeholder groups saying "gently caress those (their words not mine) people why do they get someone on Canadian money and not (insert random minority here) instead." In the end it was ceded because, well, when everyone is yelling at you in politics it tends to happen. Again, I don't agree, just a little perspective from someone who was in the office when the decision was made. Pretty frustrating.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 14:21
|
|
|
Leofish posted:This is such a pedandtic derail that comes up as a criticism of feminist efforts in Canada, and the United States. A feminist will argue that there is a problem within Canada, as to how women are treated. Let's say it's a case of sexual assault on college and university campuses, for example. Yea I totally agree. I mean of course it's disgusting that things such as that happen anywhere but it definitely shouldn't detract from the efforts of people here to fight other inequalities. Also, there are appropriate places to raise awareness of certain ridiculous inequalities and that isn't certainly the place to do it. gently caress anyone who treats women like poo poo, gently caress them all.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 20:54
|
|
|
Tochiazuma posted:I've seen the 'We're not as bad as X so why are you complaining?' argument used for everything from sexism to racism to poverty to academic achievement. It sucks for all of them. Like Cordyceps says, it's especially bad when it's used to gloss over real problems that exist right here in Canada. I pretty much have a great dislike of anyone that thinks either situation is alright. They are both loving reprehensible and wrong and people should hang for it. That being said you can't just say X is worse so gently caress problem why, those people really boggle the mind. As far as working on the issues you can never work on solely one at the expense of all others and by doing something like you described that idiot was doing you are really only trying to pull away from the legitimacy of both claims which is dead wrong at best and evil at worst.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:How do you feel about the governments response to various criticisms by the UN over the last couple years? I feel like it has been shameful in some places sure, like any other government but unlike a person on a street a government has an opportunity cost to address whenever it does anything and I believe government should commit to global goals especially in the worst areas. I don't think anyone should detract from the importance of any one file but when a government is committing resources to the world on the whole there are certainly some issues which are worse than others, what I believe is worse I'll keep to myself but I certainly am able to explain that a government has a global responsibility and a person in a city is a bit different. (To be honest I know that isn't an incredibly well communicated answer but it's a sensitive topic and Sunday is not a super aggressive argument day for me.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 00:10
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Yeah man, after we figure out who's going to do the chores now that women are exactly 100% equal with men in all other ways, that's it. Feminism's done. We've reached the endgame, we just need to push a little harder and when your husband finally does the vacuuming for once in his life you can sit back, relax, crack open a beer and reflect on how feminism is no longer necessary because we solved all the gender problems in the world. Truly the end game, now we get all geared out. Thank God we hit level 90/55/MaxLevel. Feminism truly has been completed. In other news, the Post seems to be getting better and better at using photos to make Harper look hilarious or bad depending on how you look at it. Oh how the times they are a changin. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 04:25
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:A little disingenuous, because Clark and Wynne did win leadership races (And the Ontario one boiled down to two women let's be honest). That being said, let's 2.5 then. Also, the premier of NFLD is a woman as well, which means half the provinces have women premiers. Also didn't Clarke or won't Clarke run again in a steal riding? I maybe wrong here I stopped paying attention to it all after the election.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:When she became Premier she ran and won in a byelection in Campbell's riding So technically elected I suppose, as well. Merci, Bunny!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 04:52
|
|
|
THC posted:Clark is Premier, but she lost her seat in the recent election, and as such will not be able to sit in the Legislature until somebody falls on their sword. Wait so did Clarke run in Campbell's riding or not in a by election?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 05:34
|
|
|
THC posted:CRTC actually does something useful for a change. I don't think they care anymore because it was getting a bit ridiculous. Even the Government was on them for this change to happen. I am so happy about this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 19:38
|
|
|
See finally we did something right! Love us please. But really, I was thrilled about this too! thexerox123 posted:
Amazing enjoy it my friend. It is well worth the wait if you're able too! Assuredly it will be the best sandwich you have had in Ottawa. Though Dirienzo's off Preston is great too. Rust Martialis posted:
I have had the pleasure of working with him and while his humour is dry and having to listen to him give a speech can be just boring as all hell, he is an incredibly brilliant dude!
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 16:52
|
|
|
Rust Martialis posted:... because the French language police give you poo poo for having an apostrophe in your company name. Which I couldn't believe when they did. How insane is that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 17:51
|
|
|
THC posted:Who cares? This is a company that makes a half billion dollars in profit each year I'm sure they'll survive having to have different cups and signs to suit the various localities where they do business. Maybe they can dip into their endless budget for stupid TV commercials to pay for it Yea, gently caress margins. Business is about survival not success. [/S] I see what your saying but obviously disagree with you and could offer a million hyperbolic examples to show why that statement seems so privileged and from an economic perspective just foolish. But I think we know I don't agree anyway so I guess I won't. But out of curiosity why does that happen to them but then Burger King can have it's name as above on St Catherine Street across from The Bay and Game Buzz? I never fully understood it. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 18:12 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
THC posted:Nah gently caress that let's jus use the same exact one-size-fits-all strategy and marketing materials in every region and if it doesn't work for whatever reason or god forbid the people there get mad at us for making GBS threads cookie-cutter english symbols and terms all over their neighbourhood we can just go cry about it on Sun News or whatever I'm not sure if when you write stuff like this you are being intentionally daft or it just comes off that way. You do, at least, as I noted understand where I'm coming from but choose to be ignorant right? That is OK, remember me and punitive crime. But if what you assert is what you have logically concluded you are misinformed at best and foolish at worst. Hint: the fact that it is mandated is the issue. Obviously a company should have different strategies for different reasons its the nitpicking that causes companies to become spiteful and then leave/rollback expansion along with the jobs they create. At least I can understand your reason and then point out why I disagree. I am just trying to understand why you seem to not even understand the argument from the opposing side. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 18:31
|
|
|
tripwood posted:I actually don't understand what your point is. Canada is a bilangual country. That's going to cause some adaptations. There's french speakers outside of Québec too. Again, you don't understand it? It don't agree. I am arguing it is ridiculous that happened. Let TH or Harvey's do what they want without mandating it first. If its that bad for them to write it the way they do everywhere else then they won't be visited by a large majority of the population and they will fail. To force it creates a flaw in what is a generally market based system. To force the government to do it and any public service, sure (even though sometimes that's not the case.) to force a private business to do it simply makes no sense in a market based economy. That's my point. I thought I had basically made it, apparently not. I don't ask SAQ to hang its logo in English too, but there are English speakers in QC, conversely the same can be said of Alberta not forcing companies to do everything in French. I have a big issue with the language police. (Lol pasta) Anyway I am a big proponent of taxing business, and I am generally OK with the gently caress business attitude but to force language on people and companies that are not owned by the public trust seems ridiculous at best. Regulate safety, sure, tax business, sure. Tell/force them to use any language and you're an rear end in a top hat. Be it English, French or loving Swahili. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Helsing posted:We already forced companies to list the ingredients that they use in food and to adhere to certain standards when advertising their products. We have very specific rules for how you run your business, we regulate how food is prepared and we have exacting specifications for how employees and employers relate to each other. Right you'll notice from early I said I was pro regulation for things like safety (ingredient listing falls under this and the like) but random adherence to language is wrong when it is shovelled onto companies. As I said I am pro regulation in many respects but the above argued language requirements are absurdly ridiculous. THC posted:Cities and provinces and countries can and should mandate whatever limitations or requirements on business they consider desirable, because they exist to balance various competing priorities which can include anything from aesthetics and culture to worker rights and consumer safety. They should not discard those priorities to accomodate the bottom line of multibillion dollar corporations which, if left to their own devices, would pay no regard to these things whatsoever. If Tim Hortons is not part of Quebec culture and people don't want to support it they don't have to. But you shouldn't have to force language regulation on them to do that. If the rest of Quebec, feel the same as you do then don't regulate the language and nitpick ridiculous things and of course they will go under in QC and they will move out. Maybe if we didn't jam language down their throat and they still did well it would mean QC culture is changing, since culture is sort of a living tree anyway. Or do you mean a specific view of culture that you identify as QC culture. Anyway lets end /languagelawnchat I know not everyone agrees on this and there isn't a point in debating principled arguments. Sorry for stirring it up. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 19:29 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:25
|
|
|
Again, Helsing/THC I see what you're both saying though THC again I think your example is disingenuous on purpose. Anyway you've made your point gentlemen and I definitely disagree but I get your position. This has been another episode of "lets argue about Quebec". Where the only thing guaranteed to come out of it is spite. If only there was somewhere else in Canada where we could bicker like this over at least it wouldn't be directed solely at QC all the time. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 19:51 on Jun 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 4, 2013 19:44
|
|
|
Kintarooooo posted:I say, give the man a stack of queens (2,000$... that will cover a round-trip to anywhere in Canada not too small/cold/remote) and have the government fine Air Canada eight figures. Violating the terms of business is a slight against the government. "Here, let's buy your crown corporation, and oh yeah, phoque you" should never be tolerated from people exploiting our country's resources. What resources? Do you mean the planes they bought? Edit: That came off as snarky. Not that I don't agree I'm just trying to understand what you mean by 'our resources'. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
ocrumsprug posted:The Air Canada brand and the federally protected environment it operates "freely" in. Having someone on board that is fluent enough in French is a pretty minor price in Canada to pay. If those executives disagree, they are free to buy those planes for a new airline. When you say federally protected I assume you are talking about back on the day when they had a monopoly in air traffic in Canada? Since the don't anymore I guess it's just a belief that there should continuation of that policy minus the benefits? I understand what your saying but it sort of seems like the carrot is being bitten at both ends then?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:True. He is a gentleman. However, I meant it more as the government. Doing things like exlcuding Marc Garneau from the Canadarm exhibit opening, muzzling scientists, and a whole host of other incidents leads me to apply to that label to them. That was a dick move. But I would chalk it up as much to a political slight as I would literally no one thinking "Hey, maybe Canadian space dude should be at the Canadian space event". I mean definitely a few people were being assholes, but I can assure you a person or two in the room when the decision was made just didn't think of it at the time. Which is both sad, and ridiculous. quaint bucket posted:That seems a little harsh. Team Theology (Conservative supporter/staffer for one of the senators?) has been posting reasonably well here. I actually look forward to see what he has to say sometime which breaks up the echo chamber here. Senator, man if only I worked in an office with so little power and such a huge budget. Then I could play games all day! For the record, staffers aren't usually in agreement with their bosses (MP, Minister, Senator or otherwise) over everything. We just do our jobs as our bosses would like them done to the best of our ability (if we are good at our job).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
Alctel posted:The more I get involved in politics, the more angry I get, it's not a good cycle. Let me begin by saying I have been in Ottawa my whole life save for schooling. It definitely could knock that attitude into someone. Also Bunny as usual I know you are a gentleman you would have to be pretty flippant about being a jackass for me to take any offence. (Now for content) That seems like one of those comments where you go "all Asians are evil but no offence Asians". Not going into the fundamentals I just think a lot of politics is a debate between people and what they think the role of the government should be versus the role of the individual. Also my family has almost always been in small business and politics is generally (aside from the occasional champagne socialist) about people wanting to get the best for themselves. Anyway it's all good you are more than welcome to disagree with me, the party or what have you. But I think I could say the same about anything rhetorical the NDP has said about raising taxes which (and I know this for a fact because I know what my families margins are) would bankrupt our small business and put our employees out of work. Again, this is just a minutiae example and I don't really want to get into my personal reasons for being a Conservative and very individualistic-"ally" driven versus communally but I think you guys get the point. Everyone comes with ideas and ideals which they think are right, I don't think my ideas are right for everyone but they are for me and mine and really that's what most people (whether they think it or not) are fighting for in a democracy. Sure I'm Conservative, but I'm no fool and I don't think myself evil. I just think most people (even those that don't think it) walk a pretty self serving path - even when they don't mean to. That being said I have first had experienced wages going up and us having to let go great staff because we couldn't afford them because people still didn't want to pay more for goods. Certainly in retail and the like, from my observations. All that to say we all have different views and feel we can justify them. To call someone out on being hateful or stupid is distasteful to me. PS: I love all you guys. Politics are politics and disagreements are what they are but I bear no ill will to those who disagree. Hell, if (read: when) we lose government I won't be mad at anyone, or the NDP, or the Libs (Bunny, see I remembered!). It will be our fault and I get that. But to think anyone in this 'Game of Seats' is innocent or without there blemishes is foolish and to decry someone for their political views without fully understanding why or where they come from is foolish at best and ignorant at worst. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 00:02 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 23:58
|
|
|
Mr. Wynand posted:Well, let's see, the nuclear energy related deaths: The day you find a nuclear disaster in a western made modern nuclear plant I will cede this argument. I think they have only happened in older, shoddy built disasters that were poorly regulated at best. I had a chance to talk with an IAEA advisor about this once and nothing gets one of them more upset than crazies who think our modern plants in the west are anything like Japan, Chernobyl or the like. It's just not a viable internal energy policy platform in Canada.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 00:08
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:You mean like this one? Edit: agree up top on Candu 100% drat my fault, when I said serious incident, I forgot that was actually classified on the INES I meant an event with local consequences or higher with a power plant that has been built in the last 10-15 years. I'm pretty sure we are doing OK since the most recent so Generation III Advanced LWR's. Every example in that list to my knowledge occurred with CPR's or Gen-1 stuff but I maybe wrong. If the argument from their side was lets invest in nuclear power, demolish the old ones and build brand new ones, I'd jump all over it. But "gently caress Nuclear Power" seems like a "gently caress the Environment" argument. Both are stupid and childish. \/\/\/ well said. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 00:34 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 00:28
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:They absolutely do fund anti-nuclear scaremongering, along with anti-wind which they invest big-time in denouncing (KILLING BIRDS!!!!). Man there were so many cost problems with wind power let alone the swath of other efficiency issues, lets not even. The oil and gas industry didn't even need to do that one itself.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Looking at his tweets, it's all about C-461. It is... He is using this as a scapegoat to leave. Here are his thoughts on his bill and what he intended to do to the CBC. From his blog so with a healthy heap of salt. Here. Edit: sorry Bunny
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:42
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:A quick skim of that completely ignores why people are so against his loving bill. It isn't the first element as much as the second element: Yea man, dude is off his rocker. I just wish we would have known before we endorsed him as our candidate last election. I'm happy, doesn't gently caress with our Majority and he was a loose cannon. bunnyofdoom posted:Hey man, even if it wasn't why I wanted, it's still a good thing for me. So, my condolences buddy. True story. All that said dude is leaving our party because we aren't hard enough on the CBC. I assure you this is just for posterities sake and he still votes our bills 99.99% of the time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:A conservative leaving caucus cause he says the government isn't be transparent, especially in the midst of the scandal, is huge for us. No matter if I agree with the cons on this one that his bill was god-gently caress-stupid. The problem is the image people are going to get. Nah I'm not implying from a work perspective it's good for me. Personally I'm just happy he has nothing to do with my caucus anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:00
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Peter Julian is probably thinking wishfully, but he makes a good point that that majority is down to 8 seats. Wells' First Rule and all, I doubt there are nine more disgruntled backbenchers out there that would vote to topple Harper, but this seems to me like a blow to what's become the government's weak spot, and it might shake some more of the true believers loose. We'll see. The thing is most of this as I said, is posturing. If any of the people who left the caucus were in a position to topple the government they would run home squealing with their tails between their legs. They are rocking the boat, but they all know God drat well they won't be re-elected when the next election comes around so they wanna stick it out as long as possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:17
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Well, you're obviously closer to the CPC caucus than I am, but I grew up out West and I know the kinds of people who voted these guys in. Just because the rural Prairies won't vote Liberal doesn't mean that half of these guys couldn't run for NeoReform and win anyway, if they're pushed hard enough. Obviously they'd end up in Opposition but the past seven years have convinced me that most of them would be happier there. Who from PMO is doing this. Please post the handle now.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:26
|
|
|
Canadian Surf Club posted:He's talking about Andrew MacDougall I believe. @PMO_MacDougall It's like the comms department are trying to make PMO's job hard on purpose just for the challenge. :Facepalm:
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Wow. Other than the tweets calling for a byelection, has there actually been a response from anyone? Only one I found on our end is a tweet from Marc Garneau That would be no. In other news this was released. But seriously, no. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:53
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:I hope there isn't. Maybe our opposition can finally learn to stop interrupting the government when they're self-destructing. I think he meant more from us than opposition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 15:58
|
|
|
Helsing posted:When it rains it pours. Given how restive the Conservative backbenchers are proving to be right now maybe this will finally be the year that the infighting at the Conservative convention hits the boiling point. Man I can't wait for Convention. CPC Brawl in Calgary '13.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:I really hope the Progressive Conservatives wing of the party can hold their own at the convention, but it feels like their support and numbers are dwindling. Mackay is just being his classic maverick self trying on stew up a problem, this was voted on at the last convention and most ridings, even those who would supposedly benefit voted against the one member one vote proposal. Most smart Conservatives will. This is an internal struggle that a fair number of conservatives think about every convention but logic has always prevailed amongst the delegate voters. I see no reason to suggest this time would be any different. bunnyofdoom posted:I live in his riding. Also that riding, like mine is so blue it doesn't really matter. It's sort of like if Ottawa-Center went Conservative. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 17:40 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Stephen Harper posted:Uh Wait isn't this basically just a somewhat inflammatory story trying to tell people about party coffers? Or is it sort of like earmarked funding in the US? I think this is a bit of piling on but I suppose this can be construed in a more inflammatory way. My bet this doesn't really become a story. I thought pretty much everyone knew this existed in every party. Yea I suppose \/ that being said its used for things that could be construed as partisan that the party and PM don't want the government to pay for. It's also a bit disingenuous to say its half the publics in an attempt to skew the optics. It is half public in that through voter subsidy most political funding has public cash in it. Anyway, ill be interested to see if/when this becomes spoken about in other media outlets. Team THEOLOGY fucked around with this message at 22:51 on Jun 6, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 22:46
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 13:13 |
|
|
DynamicSloth posted:It's pretty loving weird that one guy controlled the fund exclusively. He could have written himself a $90,000 cheque to cover the Duffy bribe anytime he wanted. Nah the party fundraiser board oversight would bite that at the bud. Also, Nigel taking money from the party would be absurd. He's so drat wealthy that would never happen anyway. But I see your point. That being said the LPC, NDP, and CPC all have funds used for this sort of partisan spending they don't think it appropriate that the OLO or PMO or parliament pay for.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 6, 2013 22:53
|
|