CanPol 2024: the religious experience of pissing on dolphins

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2024: the religious experience of pissing on dolphins

«‹›858 »

(Thread IKs: ZShakespeare)

PT6A: Jan 5, 2006; Public school teachers are callous dictators who won't lift a finger to stop children from peeing in my plane

pokeyman posted:

If there's one thing the world needs, it's more and longer tweet threads.

If you don't read this in the Lionel Hutz voice, you're missing out.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 04:28

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 16:55

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

quote:

Dan Fumano: Should businesses get to vote in local elections? This new group says yes

Opinion: Business owners want to be heard. But proposal for "business vote" in local elections will be controversial among those wary of corporate influence in democracy.

Should local companies have the right to vote in local elections, just as people do?
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

B.C. corporations used to have a vote in municipal elections, but the provincial government ended that in 1993. The then-municipal affairs minister told The Vancouver Sun it was an archaic law, and he knew of no other North American jurisdiction that granted corporations the vote.

Now, an alliance of thousands of B.C. commercial taxpayers, in partnership with a Texas firm that helps corporations pay less taxes, wants to bring back the business vote.

The push comes from the Business Tax Alliance , a new group run by longtime local business advocates, with a public campaign launching Tuesday. They are calling on the B.C. government for two things: property tax reform to help businesses and the reinstatement of the municipal business vote.
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Businesses and their advocates, including some of those involved in this new alliance, have been pushing for years for property tax reform. Both municipal and provincial politicians have pledged action.

The demand for the municipal business vote is an old idea this group wants to rekindle. Some business owners are frustrated by municipal governments they say do more to hinder than help, and a say at the ballot box could, they hope, provide more accountability.

The proposal will be controversial. Some people will say we need less corporate influence in our democracy, not more.

The alliance consists of more than 20 business improvement associations in Vancouver, Victoria and Surrey, which say they represent more than 10,000 commercial taxpayers. Spearheading the effort is Ryan ULC, the Canadian subsidiary of Ryan LLC, a Dallas tax firm that, according to its website , serves companies including BP and Walmart, and specializes in �liberating our clients from the burden of being overtaxed, freeing their capital to invest, grow and thrive.�
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Vancouver restaurateur Mike Jeffs says he�s �not an anti-tax zealot.� But he says he likes the idea of companies voting in civic elections because municipal governments exert so much power over businesses like his, with seemingly little accountability.

Jeffs, who owns Vancouver restaurants including Nook and Oddfish, is one of many owners of small- and medium-sized businesses frustrated by a city hall bureaucracy that seems unwilling or unable to work with them, instead �just throwing hurdles in the way.�

�Part of our obligation running a business is to support the community, and that�s how we fund our community, by paying taxes. I get that, totally, and I don�t mind paying taxes,� said Jeffs.

�But let me tell you, I�m paying a lot more taxes than I was 10 years ago, and I�m getting a lot less in services. That�s what I don�t understand� . I believe a lot of that is because they are not accountable to us. That bureaucracy doesn�t seem to be accountable to anybody, to be honest.�

Corporations have never been able to vote in Canadian or B.C. elections, and Jeffs thinks that�s a good thing. �I think we have a little bit too much business influence in our federal and provincial politics.�

The debate has resurfaced over the years. The B.C. government explored the issue with a � corporate vote discussion paper � in 2010, but no action was taken.

Business owners and advocates argued for years that �because businesses pay significant amounts of property tax, local elected officials should be accountable to business taxpayers through the electoral system,� the paper said. �It has been suggested that local elected officials� decisions tend to reflect the interests of voting residents rather than other, non-voting taxpayers such as businesses.�

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce has called for reinstating the corporate vote several times over the years, including a position paper last year arguing: �The fact that businesses have become the silent ratepayers has led to many municipalities levying an unfair burden of property tax onto their business community.�

Not everyone agrees it�s a good idea. There are valid reasons why the B.C. government removed the corporate vote and why other jurisdictions never adopted it, said Mike Harcourt, the former B.C. NDP premier whose government changed the law in 1993.

�It�s people that vote,� Harcourt said Monday, �and corporations are not people.�

There could be fairness issues, if, for example, the rules mean a person who owns five businesses in one city gets five votes. That�s how it worked in B.C. before the rules changed in 1973.

The democratic principle, Harcourt said, is �one person, one vote.�

�It�s the value of each person, whatever their wealth or standing, whether they�re an owner and tenant, a man or woman, whatever their ethnic background,� Harcourt said. �We�ve fought long and hard for all those principles, and those are important principles to fight for. But this one isn�t.�

Harcourt said businesses already have their voices heard by government, as illustrated by recent efforts at property tax relief by both Vancouver and the province. He doesn�t see a compelling reason for the province to reinstate the business vote, especially considering it wasn�t widely exercised when it existed.

Corporations weren�t able to vote in Vancouver long before the change was made provincewide, and in B.C.�s 1990 municipal elections, only about 600 people voted in municipalities where they didn�t live but were eligible by owning more than 50 per cent of a business there.
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Paul Sullivan, a Vancouver-based principal of Ryan, is a spokesman for the Business Tax Alliance. Before Ryan acquired his local firm Burgess Cawley Sullivan at the start of this year, he had already spent several years fighting municipal and provincial governments to change the property tax system that he says unfairly overburdens commercial taxpayers.

The business vote push is a new part of Sullivan�s advocacy.

�Part of �why now� is we know this government in the legislature is talking about this issue, they�re going to do something about small business taxation� . I feel like this government is willing to tackle this issue, and this alliance wants to be at the table. � I feel like a municipal vote brings more accountability.�
This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.

Jeffs, the Vancouver restaurateur, thinks a corporate vote might be more �symbolic� than something that could actually swing elections. And he knows there would be debates around fairness, he said. �But that�s a conversation we need to have.�

Imma go ahead and start boycotting any business, including Nook and Oddfish that squirts a whiff of this loving bullshit. We just got through almost two loving decades of BC Liberals who wholeheartedly endorsed foreign political contributions, a practice so insane the new york times published a whole article on it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/world/canada/british-columbia-christy-clark.html

# ? Nov 9, 2021 14:57

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

Re: The ukrainian nazi unit. I don't get it. Even if they weren't neo-nazis why would CAF representatives have a meeting with some random tiny ukrainian national guard unit? Surely there's a better source of information on border conflicts than that.

You would think it would be more difficult to be this incompetent.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 14:59

Fidelitious: Apr 17, 2018; MY BIRTH CRY WILL BE THE SOUND OF EVERY WALLET ON THIS PLANET OPENING IN UNISON.

half cocaine posted:

Imma go ahead and start boycotting any business, including Nook and Oddfish that squirts a whiff of this loving bullshit. We just got through almost two loving decades of BC Liberals who wholeheartedly endorsed foreign political contributions, a practice so insane the new york times published a whole article on it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/world/canada/british-columbia-christy-clark.html

Are you loving kidding me.
They already have a voice, it's called their vote that they already have.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 15:03

Randalor: Sep 4, 2011

Fidelitious posted:

Are you loving kidding me.
They already have a voice, it's called their vote that they already have.

"But you don't understand, I'm a BUSINESS OWNER and JOB CREATOR. Why are you punishing me for making more money than you? I should get more of a say than you non-job creators!"

What are they defining as a "business" there anyways? Could I make an Etsy store, Ebay store, Amazon store and my own web store, and count that as 4 businesses for votes?

# ? Nov 9, 2021 15:13

Fried Watermelon: Dec 29, 2008

I'm shocked that business owners keep voting for the party that pledges to cut services but only sometimes lowers the tax because they need to "balance the budget"

# ? Nov 9, 2021 15:15

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

Randalor posted:

What are they defining as a "business" there anyways? Could I make an Etsy store, Ebay store, Amazon store and my own web store, and count that as 4 businesses for votes?

That is exactly why Mike Harcourt got rid of "businesses are also people" votes.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 15:16

Noblesse Obliged: Apr 7, 2012

I�m fine with corporate personhood when we can put corporations in prison.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 15:59

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

No you see, you can't put corporations in prison because uh ummm <twirls hands in the air> human rights? racism?

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2012/07/27/157421340/how-to-set-up-an-offshore-company

# ? Nov 9, 2021 16:26

EngineerJoe: Aug 8, 2004; -=whore=-

Corporate penalties really need to go from fines to shareholder dilution. Pull an Enron? 100% of your shares are turned over to the state for redistribution. Pull a lesser crime? 40% dilution? It's the only thing that matters.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 16:54

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

https://twitter.com/JasJohalBC/status/1457958876578385921

I'm not gonna read tweets by some radio guy but I'm always gonna laugh when someone brings up Moe Sahota in a positive light. Lmao

# ? Nov 9, 2021 16:58

Velcro Crucifix: Oct 7, 2013

New Brunswick is falling apart- NB Liquor workers are striking next week, and Higgs refuses to budge.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 17:16

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Velcro Crucifix posted:

New Brunswick is falling apart- NB Liquor workers are striking next week, and Higgs refuses to budge.

Just call them essential health care workers for alcoholics.

# ? Nov 9, 2021 18:16

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

I heard from a good authority that the libs are really serious about increasing the cap gains tax soon. It's Different This Time because
1) the libs are still neolibs and treat the budget like it belongs to a household
2) they're at the right point in the election cycle and they're betting everyone will forget about it in 4 or 5 more years

lmao

# ? Nov 9, 2021 20:15

Entropic: Feb 21, 2007; patriarchy sucks

Paul is officially out:

https://twitter.com/lp_lapresse/status/1458508529719906307?s=21

# ? Nov 10, 2021 20:02

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Shocking.

# ? Nov 10, 2021 20:39

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

EngineerJoe posted:

Corporate penalties really need to go from fines to shareholder dilution. Pull an Enron? 100% of your shares are turned over to the state for redistribution. Pull a lesser crime? 40% dilution? It's the only thing that matters.

How would that change the behavior of the company?

# ? Nov 10, 2021 21:44

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

half cocaine posted:

I heard from a good authority that the libs are really serious about increasing the cap gains tax soon. It's Different This Time because
1) the libs are still neolibs and treat the budget like it belongs to a household
2) they're at the right point in the election cycle and they're betting everyone will forget about it in 4 or 5 more years

lmao

I can confirm that my personal interactions with the liberals have involved them continuing to lib it up as much as possible. Not anything I can really get into semi-public details about right now, but it�s still pretty drat frustrating.

# ? Nov 10, 2021 22:17

Raenir Salazar: Nov 5, 2010; College Slice

Corporate vote thing feels like something from the TV show Continuum. Unreal.

# ? Nov 10, 2021 22:29

Cocaine Bear: Nov 4, 2011; ACAB

Futurama Nixon robot votes.gif

Also, how much is the Ford expressway gonna cost and how much are we gonna sell it for 5 years after completion to balance a single annual budget?

# ? Nov 10, 2021 22:36

Precambrian Video Games: Aug 19, 2002

Cocaine Bear posted:

Also, how much is the Ford expressway gonna cost and how much are we gonna sell it for 5 years after completion to balance a single annual budget?

I've lost count, what's the tally on the number of times Ford has had to drop a lovely idea he initially doubled down on, versus the number of times he tripled down, usually by using (or threatening to) the notwithstanding clause?

# ? Nov 10, 2021 23:41

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Fart Amplifier posted:

How would that change the behavior of the company?

The owners of the shares select the board, who select the CEO, etc, so having the gov own those shares would have an obvious difference. Presumably shareholders also don't want to lose their shares, which they bought.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 02:40

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

on one hand

# ? Nov 11, 2021 05:56

Fart Amplifier: Apr 12, 2003

Muscle Tracer posted:

The owners of the shares select the board, who select the CEO, etc, so having the gov own those shares would have an obvious difference. Presumably shareholders also don't want to lose their shares, which they bought.

Would it? There's no additional incentives to not break the law that a government can offer in that scenario.

Muscle Tracer posted:

Presumably shareholders also don't want to lose their shares, which they bought.

That's the case for any loss of value, such as corporate fines, which are already ineffective.

The real solution is to put real people in jail, since only people can actually commit crimes.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 07:40

apatheticman: May 13, 2003; Wedge Regret

half cocaine posted:

on one hand

A truer let them fight.gif has never happened in recent Canadian politics.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 07:59

B33rChiller: Aug 18, 2011

Fart Amplifier posted:

Would it? There's no additional incentives to not break the law that a government can offer in that scenario.

That's the case for any loss of value, such as corporate fines, which are already ineffective.

The real solution is to put real people in jail, since only people can actually commit crimes.

you've hit on something here. This line of thinking deserves more work. It's starting to raise some interesting questions and hypothetical scenarios in my mind re: AI committing financial crimes, automated botnets, etc.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 12:41

EngineerJoe: Aug 8, 2004; -=whore=-

Fart Amplifier posted:

How would that change the behavior of the company?

The sole purpose of the company is to enrich shareholders (and executives I guess). If you wipe out the shareholders the new shareholders will want to ensure it doesn't also happen to them.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 15:33

Muscle Tracer: Feb 23, 2007; Medals only weigh one down.

Fart Amplifier posted:

Would it? There's no additional incentives to not break the law that a government can offer in that scenario.

That's the case for any loss of value, such as corporate fines, which are already ineffective.

The real solution is to put real people in jail, since only people can actually commit crimes.

...The government can completely replace company management in that scenario.

I agree that putting people in jail for crimes is a better option, but stripping them of all power and replacing them with people you've hand-picked to not break the law does seem like it would be at the very least pretty effective?

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:06

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Muscle Tracer posted:

stripping them of all power and replacing them with people you've hand-picked to not break the law does seem like it would be at the very least pretty effective?

That who has hand picked?

Doesn't that seem like it would also invite corruption?

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:12

enki42: Jun 11, 2001; #ATMLIVESMATTER

Put this Nazi-lover on ignore immediately!

I think there's a bunch of industries where the government has an interest in nationalizing either part or all of it, but "random companies who do crimes" doesn't seem like it makes a lot of sense, and the government just holding the bag on a bunch of shares doesn't seem to advance any useful goals to me (especially when financial penalties always pale in comparison to the upside, and probably a lot of the time the version of that company that doesn't do crimes is just going to fail anyways).

Just jail the people who commit crimes, we don't do fancy games like "we'll take 5% of your salary for the rest of your life" for non-rich criminals.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:19

Maneck: Sep 11, 2011

Qu�bec politics is in a weird, moderately toxic but also familiar place right now - especially as it respects Montr�al. Fury erupted over losing a seat in Parliament because, for some reason that no one could possibly figure out, the province isn't growing the same way other parts of Canada are. Addressing the reasons behind the laggard growth is right out, obviously. So, the premier just flat out demanded that Qu�bec not lose the seat, notwithstanding the math, or else. Oh, time for a distraction before anyone has a chance to think too hard about policies recently implemented that could be perceived as hostile to new comers.

So lets throw the CEO of Air Canada on a pyre for delivering a speech in English, in Montr�al. The CEO of SNC-Lavalin too.

No tears if these guys get turfed, but the phrasing of the outrage is worth noting. The Qu�bec nationalist papers in Qu�bec adopted a stance of shock and outrage over the idea of people living in Montr�al functioning <<In English Only>>. Which is to say, they're pushing the belief that unilingual anglos living in Montr�al is a new, aberrant thing rather than the status quo for at least two hundred years.

Gilles Proulx more or less exemplifies this, while talking about the reelection of Val�rie Plante as Mayor:

quote:

Ainsi donc, Qu�bec a d�cid� d�essayer du neuf, tandis que Montr�al a pench� pour la continuit� avec celle qui promet d��tre la m�me en pire ! Le Montr�al where we can live in English du PDG d�Air Canada, Michael Rousseau, peut dormir sur ses deux oreilles.

Les �lections municipales ont eu lieu. � Qu�bec, �a change. � Montr�al, �a reste pareil. Partout au Qu�bec, � de rares exceptions, le citoyen ne s�est pas lev�. Il est rest� sur son derri�re.
...
Comme je disais en pr�ambule, le PDG unilingue anglais d�Air Canada ne sera pas d�rang� par le fran�ais dans le Montr�al de Val�rie Plante qui, dans ses 12 priorit�s, ne parle jamais du fran�ais ou de l�identit� fran�aise de sa ville, jamais, jamais.

En revanche, Mme Plante continuera de soutenir le mythe du � Montr�al territoire Mohawk �. Ce serait une bonne id�e pour Qu�bec de bl�mer les maires et les organisations sportives ou culturelles qui soutiennent ce genre de fake news qui n�a pas d�autre but que de saper la l�gitimit� de la seule nation fran�aise en Am�rique du Nord, nation qui par ailleurs finance sa propre disparition en tol�rant que les enfants de nouveaux arrivants se massent dans les c�geps anglophones.

Basically, how could the citizens of Montr�al re-elect this person, who has not event remotely adopted our talking points about how Montr�al is actually a Franco city and we need to use the law to force its people to be French speakers.

Finally, he takes a shot at Plante for acknowledging that Montr�al was, historically, Mowhawk territory. For those that missed it, Qu�bec nationalists have long told a myth about how Montr�al was a no-man's-land when settlers arrived. So when, earlier this year, the Montr�al Canadians started doing a land acknowledgment before games, naturally a furor erupted. The nationalists call the acknowledgment a myth. The most generous interpretation of their position being that they're playing a game of semantics. There is a some academic debate as to which first nations used the area for what purposes. But what is clearly a myth is the story the nationalists have been telling for a hundred years. Flat out, the historical account is that when Jacques Cartier arrived at what is now Montr�al, he met with a first nation who were very friendly and welcoming, and showed him the sites, including mount royal. There are many archeological cites in Montr�al and, to this day, the government of Qu�bec regularly returns bodies found in burial sites in the area to first nations.

So in conclusion, Qu�bec nationalists are upset that Qu�bec suffered a modest population setback, and their solution is demand more people speak French. And to legitimize that, the nationalists are pretending English speakers haven't been there for hundreds of years, while also fending off efforts to undo their longstanding mythology that the French settlers were the first people to live in Montr�al.

Maneck fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Nov 11, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:20

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Lol @ the notion that the land that is now a "major" city was actually of use to no one until the French settlers arrived and saw its incredible potential

# ? Nov 11, 2021 16:26

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

A former employee of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms alleges he was harassed by its president after leaving his job over a case he says didn't morally align with its mandate, and because of what he says was a fixation on litigation against the LGBTQ community.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 17:49

half cocaine: Jul 22, 2019

Let me get this straight, a gay guy gets a job at a hate group and is mad because he got fired?

Or is this A+ trolling?

half cocaine fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Nov 11, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2021 17:55

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

half cocaine posted:

Let me get this straight, a gay guy gets a job at a hate group and is mad because he got fired?

Or is this A+ trolling?

Some people believe what they're told about missions/principles/values, then eventually examine the actions instead of believing the words.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 18:09

St. Dogbert: Mar 17, 2011

If I was a member of the LGBTQ2+ community and wanted an easy payday, I would probably do something like this. Why wouldn�t I? I would get to line my pockets, and nobody will argue against it because the organization I would be suing is lovely and evil. I say he should take them for all they�re worth.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 18:29

leftist heap: Feb 28, 2013; Fun Shoe

half cocaine posted:

Imma go ahead and start boycotting any business, including Nook and Oddfish that squirts a whiff of this loving bullshit. We just got through almost two loving decades of BC Liberals who wholeheartedly endorsed foreign political contributions, a practice so insane the new york times published a whole article on it.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/world/canada/british-columbia-christy-clark.html

You may as well go ahead and boycott literally every restaurant cause they all think like this or worse, and the ones that don't just hide it better.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 18:35

Peaceful Anarchy: Sep 18, 2005; sXe
I am the math man.

half cocaine posted:

Let me get this straight, a gay guy gets a job at a hate group and is mad because he got fired?

Or is this A+ trolling?

Nowhere does it say, nor imply, Kennedy is gay.

pokeyman posted:

Some people believe what they're told about missions/principles/values, then eventually examine the actions instead of believing the words.

LOL

quote:

Carpay founded the JCCF in 2010.
...
Kennedy worked for the centre from 2011 until 2019 in various roles, including as its communications director.

The guy wasn't someone who joined an org and discovered he was mistaken, he had a big role in developing what it did both internally and externally. It just turns out he didn't have as big a role as he thought and eventually Carpay went too far for his liking.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-kennedy-and-john-carpay-fighting-for-free-speech-on-campus
https://north99.org/2018/01/26/far-right-dark-money-network-behind-conservative-politics-justice-centre-constitutional-freedoms/

quote:

Michael Kennedy, the JCCF�s Director of Communications and Development, was an intern at the Manning Centre and worked as a research assistant at the rightwing business lobby group the Canadian Taxpayers Federation. He was also an economist with the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a rightwing organization that was accused of �policing classroom knowledge, monitoring curricula, and limiting the autonomy of teachers and students as part of its larger assault on academic freedom.�

Kennedy knew and agreed with the people he threw his lot in with. The most generous reading is he's a more principled libertarian who hates human rights tribunals in principle, rather than just because they side against his discriminatory friends.

Peaceful Anarchy fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Nov 11, 2021

# ? Nov 11, 2021 18:35

pokeyman: Nov 26, 2006; That elephant ate my entire platoon.

Peaceful Anarchy posted:

LOL

The guy wasn't someone who joined an org and discovered he was mistaken, he had a big role in developing what it did both internally and externally. It just turns out he didn't have as big a role as he thought and eventually Carpay went too far for his liking.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/michael-kennedy-and-john-carpay-fighting-for-free-speech-on-campus
https://north99.org/2018/01/26/far-right-dark-money-network-behind-conservative-politics-justice-centre-constitutional-freedoms/

Kennedy knew and agreed with the people he threw his lot in with. The most generous reading is he's a more principled libertarian who hates human rights tribunals in principle, rather than just because they side against his discriminatory friends.

Fair enough!

# ? Nov 11, 2021 19:03

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 7, 2024 16:55

Wistful of Dollars: Aug 25, 2009

a principled libertarian knows the age of consent in all 50 states.

# ? Nov 11, 2021 19:25

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2024: the religious experience of pissing on dolphins

«‹›858 »