|
Rime posted:Unlike inhabitants of rural communities, suburbanites are bloodsuckers leeching off the services of metro areas without contributing anything other than road congestion. Thanks for convincing me to finally stop reading this loving thread. There's some posting gold in here but I'll be damned if I can wade through the histrionics and smugness anymore to get to it. 'Bloodsuckers'. Jesus christ.
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Considering how often I have started that derail, or at least made it worse, let me head it off at this time. Tony Clement: Full of poo poo In another round of blame the public service, Clement claims that 18 days a year are lost. Real number? 11.5, a full 60% of what he claimed. Of course, now that the Parliamentary Budget Office revealed this, their budget will be slashed, their duties will be transfer to a new unit, and they will investigate Chretien.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Considering how often I have started that derail, or at least made it worse, let me head it off at this time. In an ideal world, this would give Tony one less knife to stab the public service with. in reality, however, it will just be ignored and us public servants will be paid half of what we are nowadays in 10 years. brucio fucked around with this message at 00:54 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:People move to the suburbs because they see them as a welcoming and safe environment to raise their families, and where they can have a sense of community while still retaining the convenience of living in a denser area near the city. They see attacks on the sustainability of the suburbs as attacks on their lifestyle and choices. Leftists have to present solutions and transitions to these people to convince them to transition to denser development and more sustainable lifestyles, not call them names and demonise them. Tochiazuma posted:I wondered how long it would take for another round of 'fat racist entitled suburbanites amirite heh?' to start in here. You are both right. I made a bad post. I should be, and am, ashamed of myself.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:People move to the suburbs because they see them as a welcoming and safe environment to raise their families, and where they can have a sense of community while still retaining the convenience of living in a denser area near the city. They see attacks on the sustainability of the suburbs as attacks on their lifestyle and choices. Leftists have to present solutions and transitions to these people to convince them to transition to denser development and more sustainable lifestyles, not call them names and demonise them. Maybe those sad fucks should evolve to drink oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
If you are that thin skinned that you can't deal with a bit of colourful terminology then why are you reading Something Awful in the first place? If you're looking for bland and innofensive the Globe & Mail is right over there
Juul-Whip fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Tsyni posted:Maybe those sad fucks should evolve to drink oil. What the gently caress is this even supposed to mean?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
brucio posted:In an ideal world, this would give Tony one less knife to stab the public service with. in reality, however, it will just be ignored and us public servants will be paid half of what we are nowadays in 10 years. Or it will used as "Lookit those public servants lying to cover for each other. It's all the union's fault and as such we need to ban it"
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
THC posted:If you are that thin skinned that you can't deal with a bit of colourful terminology then why are you reading Something Awful in the first place? If you're looking for bland and innofensive the Globe & Mail is right over there I'm usually pretty offended by the G&M
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
THC posted:If you are that thin skinned that you can't deal with a bit of colourful terminology then why are you reading Something Awful in the first place? If you're looking for bland and innofensive the Globe & Mail is right over there You don't understand. Everything in this thread must be fit for print and totally evenhanded or the Tories will reign for a hundred years of darkness. This is why progressives can't win, some anonymous internet posters occasionally use sarcasm or Carlin's seven dirty words.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
Are you telling me that some goons have stupid, simplistic opinions and don't actually understand things nearly as well as they think they do?! 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
"suburbs" and "sense of community" are mutually exclusive things, "pinterest mom". But oh lord, I'm guessing I just offended the sensibilities of a bunch of goons, by crossing the sacred line of talking ill about the suburbs. HOwever will this thread survive. RBC fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
People with more patience and understanding then I can try to debate suburbanite right wing idiots and Albertans (heh), we need someone to call them out on their stupid bullshit and yell obscenities and make generalizations, god knows that they have no lack of people to call out the left's stupidities so I just consider it my god given duty to even the odds somewhat. In all seriousness though, this focus on not offending people who would gladly take away the right to vote from me and my family/friends is loving silly. If you support policies that are loving horrible, then don't be loving surprised and offended when some people call you a horrible person. Sometimes my goal isn't to whack my head on a brick wall of right wing opinions but just to let off some steam and call out lovely people and policies for what they are. "The KKK is just giving their opinion man, you don't have to call them names just because they think you are a lower form of life." gently caress that. Harry Joe fucked around with this message at 01:53 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:People with more patience and understanding then I can try to debate suburbanite right wing idiots and Albertans (heh), we need someone to call them out on their stupid bullshit and yell obscenities and make generalizations, god knows that they have no lack of people to call out the left's stupidities so I just consider it my god given duty to even the odds somewhat. Rural people are also right wing idiots in my experience. I'm actually all in favor of increasing population density as much as possible, I think cities are the best way to force people to confront the stupidity of their bigotry and reactionary bullshit. And I don't think there's any point in worrying about the sensibilities of suburbanites. The only reason they exist is because we created an economic environment that incentivized home ownership as a store of value. Take away the privileges and people will adapt, the suburbs will empty. This is over the long term, of course, you can't change it all at once, but changing the incentives is the only thing that will create the change we want. The reason why posters in this thread can go gently caress themselves with their stupid bullshit is that posts bemoaning the evil of the suburbs aren't insightful, aren't funny, and really only serve as a stupid macho posturing and self-affirmation for angry nerds on the Internet. Who the gently caress cares what you think of the suburbs, its not like it was going to some revolutionary new viewpoint anyway. Save your poli-sci 101 opinions for your remedial seminar and stop making GBS threads up this thread with more meaningless white noise opinions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
I have no problem with suburbs if they are: A) Walkable with human scale environments, a strong public realm, and a large range of housing options suitable for every life stage and; B) Well connected by public transportation, bikeways, and roads that allow everyone easy access to where they want to go regardless of whether they own a car or not. But as for the poo poo we've built instead of the above (i.e. sprawling auto dependent garbage the development industry somehow manages to market as "communities" with a straight face), then yeah, it's all a pile of junk that was an enormous mistake to construct in the first place and will be an incredible challenge to service let alone retrofit for future generations.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:People move to the suburbs because they see them as a welcoming and safe environment to raise their families, and where they can have a sense of community while still retaining the convenience of living in a denser area near the city. They see attacks on the sustainability of the suburbs as attacks on their lifestyle and choices. Leftists have to present solutions and transitions to these people to convince them to transition to denser development and more sustainable lifestyles, not call them names and demonise them. Unfortunately the only sense of community you typically find in the suburbs is the exclusionary FYGM kind that exists primarily as an expression of residents' insecurities and biases. While obviously being as undiplomatic as we are in this thread isn't helpful irl, I don't think there's any way to truly tackle these issues in a way that many suburbanites won't immediately become hostile to. It doesn't matter if we call them douchelords or suggest more funding to expanded public transit, in many people's minds it's the same level of insult because to be "made" to use public transit like some poor person when they werked so herd for their minivan/SUV. It's just unconscionable. If anyone can be reached, it's these people's kids. A lot of them are going to find it more difficult to coast to a stop in the burbs like their parents did and may already be wondering why their older siblings are still living in the basement.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
Little Blackfly posted:Rural people are also right wing idiots in my experience. I'm actually all in favor of increasing population density as much as possible, I think cities are the best way to force people to confront the stupidity of their bigotry and reactionary bullshit. Tell me more about rural people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Tell me more about rural people. All I know is that I've heard more anti gay slurs in rural Ontario than anywhere else. HTH.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
You sound like a bunch of Manitobans in here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:You sound like a bunch of Manitobans in here.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 02:48
|
|
|
I think it's entirely possible to be critical of the infrastructure and financial policies that subsidize and attempt to sustain an extremely unsustainable (from a purely financial point of view, let alone environmental/resource perspective) pattern of development, as well as the creation and pandering to the voting block that depends on these policies, without being poo poo-heads about it. A big problem though, and why I don't think we'll see change until the system crashes, relates strongly to our housing bubble thread. So much of our country has their lives completely tied up with their house and house value. It's their investment, it's their retirement, it's their everything. This system requires massive amounts of money being dumped into it to keep going, and the moment the sprawling suburbs have to actually pay for their infrastructure and upkeep those houses are going to lose a lot of value. We're absolutely addicted to highways and oil to the point that even the slightest hint at slowly transitioning away from that sends people into a reactionary panic that results in Rob Ford's being elected. I'd like to see the actual long term sustainable cost of various lifestyles actually paid for. I don't want to see the suburbs suddenly crippled by massive property taxes and gas taxes, simply their true costs paid for. At the same time I want to see denser urban living made more affordable and family friendly. No one should feel forced into the suburbs because they have a family, it should be reserved for people who genuinely prefer the lifestyle and are willing to pay for it. Sprawl gets more expensive the farther out you go, not to the user, but to the city. That suburban house 10km from the city centre is more expensive than the suburban house 30km from the city, but the farther away house not only needs more infrastructure to get to and from work, but that traffic has to flow through all the other suburbs between it and the centre. With less sprawl, people who like suburban life actually win because there is less sprawl needed to cater to their demographic, so they can find suburbs closer to the city and those suburbs need less infrastructure to function. At the same time, when the true savings and efficiency of urban living are leveraged and freed from the burden of supporting sprawl the city becomes a much more affordable place for all walks of life. With more families living in the core you can support more and better schools and "family infrastructure". In much of europe this is the norm. Renting is the norm and rents are reasonable. Families big and small live in spacious apartments in the centre, their kids walking to school and their friend's homes. Because the majority of the population is living in a much denser arrangement, suburbs are much closer to the city and require much less infrastructure, plus they are just better designed usually with tram or at least good bus service. For example when I was in Berlin for about a month I did not stay in the centre, I found a house in the far fringes of suburban Berlin, literally at the edge of the city (as in city stops, farms beyond). Even so, I could walk to a suburban train station in 5 min and be in Mitte within 20 min. The houses in this area were all quite affordable too. And once again, even though this was a purely suburban area of single family homes, the streets were a very walkable grid (no maze of curved dead ends) and there were shops by the S-Bahn station. I was in a suburb as far from the centre as possible yet I did not need a car (yet I could have one if I wanted). Canada could easily transition into urban planning like this, everyone would win. Suburbanites would enjoy more transit, families would have the choice to live in the suburbs or city or anything in between, and overall affordability goes up for everyone. Sprawl is an extremely inefficient and expensive pattern of development and we have not yet begun to pay the true long term costs. (of course this is a generalization, there's some real poo poo cities in europe too that have gone whole-hog into trying to copy the worst of north american infrastructure and development patterns) Also the whole URBAN ELITES vs SUBURBAN BIGOTS is extremely harmful and is a big reason why people like Ford get and stay elected. Anyone who actually cares about improving our built environment would do well to ditch the adversarialism and stereotypes. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 03:12 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:You sound like a bunch of Manitobans in here. Dude not cool, my best friend is Manitoban.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
THC posted:If you are that thin skinned that you can't deal with a bit of colourful terminology then why are you reading Something Awful in the first place? If you're looking for bland and innofensive the Globe & Mail is right over there I'm too thin skinned to read Margaret Wente articles. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
I get all my news from the NP comments section.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I get all my news from the NP comments section. That's weak, I get all mine from the public facebook status updates people post along with links to articles from the Sun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:Dude not cool, my best friend is Manitoban. Friends don't let friends live in Manitoba.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
Hey, St. Boniface is awesome.  Really Winnipeg as a whole was pretty great. Best kept secret in Canada.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
I don't really get that argument that leftists should be more conciliatory towards our political opponents. I mean, we tend to get derided as Stalinists and elitists, and guess what, the people who say that are getting elected. Politics is a grudge-match, and if it isn't, then it's not really being effective. Leftists want totally different things than rightists, and if being diplomatic about it means denying some of our viewpoints and going along with terrible ones for the point of political expediency, than I don't see the point. We think we're right, they think they're right, we both can't be right. Don't you dare say the truth is in the middle. While I do hate capitalism and the effects it is having on the world, it's still preferable to feudalism. However, that doesn't mean that we still need it to dominate our lives. Socialism at least has a scientific basis, whereas conservatism only attempts to create one to justify it's positions. That's a huge difference, and frankly, I'm sick of conservatives backing up their position with the fact that communism lost the Cold War. The French reactionaries, with the help of their allies governing other countries, re-established the French crown. It doesn't matter in the long run, because people saw a temporary attempt towards greater freedom. With all the crimes committed against the people by the Soviet Union and Communist China, which I do not deny, there was at least a dream of a world where the vast majority of the population is not forced to work for the minorities' profits. I'm of the mind most of the excesses occurred because, oh, I don't know, the rest of the world tried to strangle them in the crib, making the remaining revolutionaries untrusting and paranoid. Another thing I absolutely despise is how people use the mass movements that led to the fall of the Soviet Union as proof that Communism was doomed to fail. There's been mass movements in many countries to get rid of capitalism, but capitalists fight tooth and nail to keep their power, and will go to any lengths to do so. Point out a capitalist country, that went communist due to mass movements, that didn't resort to violence, and we'd be able to talk about the efficiency of non-violent protest. I know this is a big, somewhat rambling post, but I had to get this stuff off my chest. We can only try to change people's minds through persuasion for so long. The fact is, some people are committed to their ideas, and no amount of truth can make them change their minds. Being weak in your denuciations of incorrect viewpoints only makes you look weak.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Ardent Communist posted:I don't really get that argument that leftists should be more conciliatory towards our political opponents. I mean, we tend to get derided as Stalinists and elitists, and guess what, the people who say that are getting elected. Politics is a grudge-match, and if it isn't, then it's not really being effective. Leftists want totally different things than rightists, and if being diplomatic about it means denying some of our viewpoints and going along with terrible ones for the point of political expediency, than I don't see the point. We think we're right, they think they're right, we both can't be right. Don't you dare say the truth is in the middle. While I do hate capitalism and the effects it is having on the world, it's still preferable to feudalism. However, that doesn't mean that we still need it to dominate our lives. Considering how terrible a person Stalin was, I wish goons would stop trying to hand wave away all the terrible things that communist countries did as being purely a reaction to capitalism. Communism's value an economic theory isn't validated by whether or not the violent partisans who took hold of Russia or China were beacons of moral righteousness. It would be better to own up to the mistakes and say that any other attempts would have the benefits of hindsight. Plenty of progressives supported eugenics before it became clear how terrible an ideology it was. The ability to learn from history and strive to be better is exactly what makes leftist ideologies different from conservative ones. In fact, modern Marxist scholarship is as much about figuring out how to keep the revolutionary structure from being captured and turned into an oppressive regime as it is about calculating out labour value of work. The dogmatism is unnecessary. Also, feel free to call suburbanites bloodsucking worms or whatever. But go call them that, don't post it on an internet forum to show how SUPER ANGRY your are, guys!. Nobody cares. And if you're going to denounce a viewpoint, actually denounce it, don't just mutter vague insults and trite talking points. If people were actually clever about their commentary, maybe it wouldn't be so excruciating to wade through. Also, all of this stuff isn't an ideological exercise, but things that stand to affect millions of people. Talk about the coming utopia all you want, but if I'm given a choice between seeing a Liberal or a Tory government, I will try for the liberal government, purely to alleviate the suffering being caused on myself and others. I'd prefer an NDP, or hell, a true socialist government, but I'm not going to fall in to the trap of letting the perfect be the enemy of the realizable. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Feb 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
I do admit that Stalin was an especially paranoid person, and most of the worst excesses of the Soviet Union can be placed at his feet, but he probably wouldn't have been able to come to power without the influence of the Russian Civil War, the mass repression of less extreme socialist parties in Tsarist Russia, and the fact that every other successful revolution (and in 1917, 1918 and 1919 there were quite a few including a nascent social movement that was violently crushed in our country) were violently crushed with the approval and support of reactionaries both within the country and without. It's my analysis of history that leads to my beliefs, and my increasing support for anarchist communism. Sapere aude, after all!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:07
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:Hey, St. Boniface is awesome. Avoiding Winnipeg is not a secret. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
angerbeet posted:You sound like a bunch of Manitobans in here. Fuckin' frostbacks.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Here's a way to attack the Conservatives: If they're so confident about their policies working, why destroy any way of evaluating if their policies work or not? Don't they want the Canadian people to know if they're doing a good job? Are they scared of what the results would show?
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
BGrifter posted:Hey, St. Boniface is awesome. Well, the Exchange District is gorgeous  
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 06:37
|
|
|
Rime posted:Didn't see this pop up yet. Turns out the National Energy board is actively covering up industrial accidents on pipelines. quote:Oliver said the government has implemented new pipeline safety measures such as increased inspections, audits and fines. Is that even true about the inspections? It would be nice if a journalist looked into that. Besides that, audits and fines are hardly safety measures. I'm not sure if inspections even qualify either, unless they're actually demonstrably preventing spills.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 06:45
|
|
|
Inspections being suppressed is being blamed on administrative errors from a public servant leaving his job. The elections changes are getting praised by a former elections commissioner, and cursed by the current one. The Tory position on veteran's affairs is being shown as harsh and out of touch.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
And the number of Canadians who care enough to do anything about it is practically Nil. There will be no "On-to-Ottawa Trek" for this generation, that's just commie leftist pinko talk! Or, even worse, you're one of them Idle No More freaks and in league with the natives!
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
THC posted:$3 billion for a single bridge? We've consulted with voters and CLEARLY there's a consensus. We'll find the money somewhere, don't you worry! Is this even a fair comparison? Im all for transit upgrades but in this case you have a bridge connecting Delta and Richmond that literally won't be able to exist in 10 years. Replacing aging infrastructure and building new infrastructure is not in the same type of budget, and sounds pretty ridiculous to me to compare. That being said I would whole heartily support more transit upgrades. $3 billion isn't really all that much to extend the flow of people and infrastructure at the lower end of the spectrum.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
Okay, so I was led to understand that current prosecutions and investigations would remain under Elections Canada if (read: when) the Fair Voting Act passes. I just skimmed through the actual act, and that doesn't seem to be the case at all. It's still under the Commissioner, but the Commissioner immediately moves over and reports to the Director of Public Prosecution. All ongoing legal action slides over with him. You could make a reasonable argument that the enforcement branch makes more sense in the department they're moving it to. I personally don't agree, because I think it at least appears more independent as part of a department that doesn't report to cabinet, even if they've made some effort to keep the Commissioner independent from the Director of Public Prosecution with regards to investigations. I have no idea what the heck the argument is behind specifically prohibiting the Director of Public Prosecution from consulting with the Chief Electoral Officer when appointing a new Commissioner, though. The requirement to inform people under investigation is ridiculous and I have fundamental problems with the Commissioner not being allowed to disclose things to the public. Generally I would agree that criminal accusations should be fairly confidential. However, elections are fundamental to the political system and, as such it's important that the public be made aware of any reasonable complaint, even if it doesn't meet the levels required for criminal prosecution. In the case of electoral irregularities, the voters need to be the final check in the system and be provided with any information that could reasonably influence their choices. The financial stuff doesn't necessarily seem terrible, but it's a couple of hundred pages of things that I'm really not versed in. The items on mass phonecalls seem generally reasonable. A lot of the rest of it seems like it's targeted to cut Marc Mayrand out of anything other than pure administration because they don't like the guy. The government doesn't have cause to try and get parliament to fire him, so instead they're stripping him of the ability to actually do anything. They've pulled his enforcement arm, aren't allowing him to actually communicate with specific vulnerable groups and a few other things. Also, I'm generally pissed about the identification requirements. It's pissing me off even more than this subject normally would because the government website that talks about how awesome this all is explains that they've cut out vouching because of the high levels of irregularities associated with it. The numbers seem odd to me, so I went and actually read the report it cited. The irregularities they are talking about are administrative irregularities (i.e. the poll staff didn't follow the correct procedures), not any measurable fraud. There are hilariously high numbers for all sorts of other issues, including people being registered in the wrong polling place. Anyway, what really got me is that the report also doesn't recommend removing vouching. It's aimed at doing a better job of administrating. So it suggests: quote:b. Investigate ways to reduce the number of voters who must have their identity and address So yeah, while citing this report, they're getting rid of vouching and are filling the act with language disallowing use of the voter information card as valid ID.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 11:08 |
|
|
Speaking of which, got sent this in email. http://you.leadnow.ca/petitions/stop-us-style-voter-suppression-from-becoming-law-in-canada I know, online petitions but it takes 15 seconds to do, so might as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 7, 2014 10:52
|
|
