|
Cultural Imperial posted:Lo and behold spurious arguments against a non existent war on drugs in Canada Agreed. Why don't you dumb SJWs post repeatedly about Jenny Kwans Disneyland trip some more?!?!
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Lo and behold spurious arguments against a non existent war on drugs in Canada It has potential to free up tons of resources (police, courts, jails, etc...) to be put to better use or just flat out save on costs. I dont understand why you hate it so much since it makes sense even to people like me who never plan on using it even if it is legalized.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Police responded to a report of a break in near one of my old neighbour's house and while checking out the area they hopped the low fence into his very visible field of pot and tomatoes. They gave a quick search looking for anything the prowler might have dropped and left, no fucks given to the backyard pot plantation. I'm trying to remember when the last time was that I saw the annual Gulf Islands Gardens Helicopter Tour go overhead. Must be several years now, but it used to be a very obvious thing every fall. Just the fuel costs alone could be a shot in the budget for a cash-strapped division.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm just glad those cunts finally found something else to tax apart from my loving liquor, to be real honest with you. I don't drive much and my electricity bills are very reasonable, so I'm not particularly fussed by this, all things considered. "Two-thirds of coal-generated electricity will be replaced by renewables, mostly wind power." That's what would worry me. By contrast, Ontario replaced 7,500 MW of coal with 3,3200 MW of wind, 9,900 MW of gas (and ramped up nuclear a bit) and it's been expensive. The problem with using wind to replace baseline power is that you need 12.5 wind turbines to guarantee the output of one. I imagine you use coal as baseline power because your other main source is natural gas which is easier to switch on and off with demand. A little napkin math, to replace 2/3 of your 6,200 MW of coal power with wind, you'll need a few 2.5 MW turbines. Multiply the 2.5 by 0.08 for baseline reliability and divide that into 2/3 * 6,200 and it looks like you'll be building about 20,460 2.5 MW wind turbines. They cost about $3m US so it'll cost $81.6 billion or $20,000 per Albertan which ironically is almost the exact same debt per capita in Ontario. All to say, replacing baseline power with wind is expensive. Hopefully, she's just politicking and it'll mostly be replaced with natural gas or my math is all wrong.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:"Two-thirds of coal-generated electricity will be replaced by renewables, mostly wind power." If we just make beer $8/bottle, I'm sure it'll be fine! That's the way the NDP does math, I think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
minimum alcohol pricing n controlled distribution has a measurably-significant impact on alcoholism rates (and associated morbidity/mortality) as well as alcohol-related crime and represents a very effective public health measure that just happens to generate a ton of revenue for the government to boot gently caress consumer choice, throwing that out the window in favour of "but i want cheaper beer at the corner store" is a catastrophically bad idea
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:minimum alcohol pricing n controlled distribution has a measurably-significant impact on alcoholism rates (and associated morbidity/mortality) as well as alcohol-related crime and represents a very effective public health measure that just happens to generate a ton of revenue for the government to boot Bbbbbut free market!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:26
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:minimum alcohol pricing n controlled distribution has a measurably-significant impact on alcoholism rates (and associated morbidity/mortality) as well as alcohol-related crime and represents a very effective public health measure that just happens to generate a ton of revenue for the government to boot Surely then a minimum sale price would be a more effective measure than taxing all booze the same, right? It's not about public health, it's about revenue generation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Furnaceface posted:It has potential to free up tons of resources (police, courts, jails, etc...) to be put to better use or just flat out save on costs. I dont understand why you hate it so much since it makes sense even to people like me who never plan on using it even if it is legalized. I spent 10 months working for the Health Canada Drug Analysis Service lab in Winnipeg, the branch of government that takes drugs seized as evidence by police and verifies their content for trial. More than 80% of the individual samples we received were suspected marijuana; the long-term employees at the lab were opposed to decriminalization simply because it would put them out of a job. The most memorable sample I worked on was from an RCMP detachment in Bumfuck, Saskatchewan, where a mother had caught her 17 year old son with a joint and had called the police. The kid, not his dealer or anyone like that, was going to be prosecuted for a single joint. This wasn't that long ago, either.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:34
|
|
|
Revenue they'll give to Samsung to build windmills which is good for public health.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:35
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Revenue they'll give to Samsung to build windmills which is good for public health. Whoa there, cowboy! I think we need Health Canada to investigate it. Elizabeth May says so, and there's no reason we shouldn't trust her! What really burns my rear end about this new carbon tax is that it's revenue-neutral. It's not like we couldn't do with a bit more money, and you're already levying a fairly unpopular tax. Why not actually make some money out of it at the same time?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:37
|
|
|
freedom > "public health" also wont these carbon taxes hurt the poor the most? smoke sumthin bitch fucked around with this message at 01:44 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:38
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Whoa there, cowboy! I think we need Health Canada to investigate it. Elizabeth May says so, and there's no reason we shouldn't trust her! They already have taxes they could increase for more revenue, raising money with the carbon tax discredits it as environmental policy. Also, Ontario is raising 2b with their carbon tax and doing the opposite of us is probably good strategy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:They already have taxes they could increase for more revenue, raising money with the carbon tax discredits it as environmental policy. Why on earth can't it be both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:44
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Surely then a minimum sale price would be a more effective measure than taxing all booze the same, right? It's not about public health, it's about revenue generation. it is, but it still represents a net good for the province when actually viewed in aggregate instead of purely as a consumer choice/FREEDOM issue, so: i'll take it, fine, whatever Ambrose Burnside fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
Cynics will see it creates profit and deride it as a tax-grab. Although certainly the groups opposed to this move will nonetheless find a way to paint it as being a selfish move by the ANDP designed to do nothing more than steal money from hard-working people/corporations and redistribute it to lazy parasites, at least this way it makes it harder to paint a convincing story.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 01:55
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:also wont these carbon taxes hurt the poor the most? In BC the tax is revenue neutral and wholly goes toward tax cuts. One of them is the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit, which I suppose is an attempt to offset whatever regressiveness there is in the Carbon Tax. The articles about the Alberta Carbon Tax say it's going to be "Revenue Neutral" but it doesn't sound that way at all. In BC all of the tax is returned somehow via some sort of tax cut, but the bolded section below sounds like regular government spending. quote:— A portion will be spent on measures to reduce pollution, including clean-energy research, green infrastructure and public transit. Other money will help individuals and families “make ends meet,” and will help people working in affected coal facilities. Money will also help small businesses and First Nations transition to cleaner energy initiatives.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 02:51
|
|
|
Pfft what is this bullshit baby poo poo http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-refugee-plan-women-children-families-1.3330185 quote:The federal government's much-anticipated Syrian refugee plan will limit those accepted into Canada to women, children and families only, CBC News has learned.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:19
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:In BC the tax is revenue neutral and wholly goes toward tax cuts. One of them is the Low Income Climate Action Tax Credit, which I suppose is an attempt to offset whatever regressiveness there is in the Carbon Tax. See? Now I don't know to be pissed off because they're dumb as gently caress, or pissed off because they're a bunch of duplicitous, lying sons of whores.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Pfft what is this bullshit baby poo poo Christians-only: Bad Women-only: A-Okay!
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Christ these people must be thick as all gently caress. If Daesh wants to slip a terrorist in now, they'll just send a woman or a family instead of a single guy. Like I said: we should treat these people like the dangerous but reasonably cunning lunatics they are, not like morons. I also fear this will hinder the attempt of gay men to seek resettlement, as gay marriage is obviously not recognized in Syria, and they are one of the groups most in need of protection and resettlement (and, being honest, probably least likely to subscribe to Islamic extremism).
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:30
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Christ these people must be thick as all gently caress. If Daesh wants to slip a terrorist in now, they'll just send a woman or a family instead of a single guy. Like I said: we should treat these people like the dangerous but reasonably cunning lunatics they are, not like morons. IF they want to slip in a terrorist they'll use the 90% of other countries where travel to Canada is easy. Also a fair point regarding the gay men.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Why the gently caress is the media reporting anything that Joe Oliver says? The dude isn't even an MP anymore. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/joe-oliver-fiscal-update-surplus-deficit-1.3329866
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:35
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:IF they want to slip in a terrorist they'll use the 90% of other countries where travel to Canada is easy. On the other hand, there's very little reason to target Canada with a citizen from a visa-free country when those countries themselves are probably equally attractive targets. As the Paris attacks demonstrated, the greatest risk to any country is citizens of that country who've been radicalized. Edit: I read a thing on VICE about a gay couple from Syria that finally reached Germany, coincidentally. While our society is not perfect with regards to LGBT rights, the threats that they had to endure just to have a relationship with the person they loved were frightening and heartbreaking to say the least. PT6A fucked around with this message at 03:39 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Drunk Canuck posted:Pfft what is this bullshit baby poo poo On the bright side this makes for a great romantic comedy premise, like The Proposal but with higher stakes. You know what? It's awful, I apologize. peach moonshine fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:54
|
|
|
PT6A posted:See? Now I don't know to be pissed off because they're dumb as gently caress, or pissed off because they're a bunch of duplicitous, lying sons of whores. The "Revenue Neutral" doublespeak is odd. Returning funds back to taxpayers is an idea I like, but I wouldn't have an issue with the government honestly saying that they're not going to totally follow BC, and will be reserving some amount of the tax revenue for government spending that will help move the province toward a post carbon future. It makes some sense to use some Carbon Tax revenue for public transit infrastructure. The Carbon Tax is a way to encourage people to choose alternatives to the automobile oriented status quo of our transportation system. If there is no viable alternative to driving, then this tax is a great deal more frustrating for the tax payer.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:The "Revenue Neutral" doublespeak is odd. Returning funds back to taxpayers is an idea I like, but I wouldn't have an issue with the government honestly saying that they're not going to totally follow BC, and will be reserving some amount of the tax revenue for government spending that will help move the province toward a post carbon future. Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm saying it would be dumb as gently caress to make it a revenue-neutral tax when there is literally no reason why that's a good idea. Absolutely those funds collected should be put toward things like public transit, instead of handed back out in the form of random other tax cuts. To clarify my earlier post: they're either criminally stupid for making it revenue-neutral, or a bunch of lying bastards for saying it's revenue-neutral when it's not. Either way, I hope they gently caress right off sooner rather than later. Let's face it: the carbon tax is going to piss a lot of people off, and it's not going to overly friendly to a lot of businesses, even if it's the right thing to do, morally speaking. Why go through that and not come away with any more loving money? It's so completely loving stupid it hurts my brain to try and comprehend why they've done this, given it will not actually increase revenue when it very easily could be made to increase revenue. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I expect they're trying, but those types of people are lunatics, not idiots. They are much more difficult to catch and prosecute than a couple of morons who can be cajoled into some kind of violent jihad. "I don't see what's wrong with entrapment"
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
The whole refugee situation is a joke. It costs $30,000 USD to smuggle a person from Turkey to Canada, and if they can get Mr. Kurd & his family past immigration services then you can bet your rear end that a bunch of dedicated stone-cold terrorists bent on wreaking havoc will have little issue getting in here. But why would they bother doing so, when it's both infinitely easier and infinitely higher-profile to bomb their way through Europe? The border checkpoints between the EU and the eastern bloc / caucasus are laughable, the Ukraine is a loving sieve that you could slip an army through. Anyone who thinks a single refugee is likely to be a terrorist, is a bigot with an inflated opinion of Canada's global importance and an unwillingness to admit that our "terror" problems are home grown.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:24
|
|
|
JawKnee posted:"I don't see what's wrong with entrapment" In a sense, yes. I think there's something wrong with entrapping someone into committing a fundamentally non-violent action, like soliciting prostitution or buying/selling drugs, but I don't have nearly as much of a problem when people are convinced into doing a violent or terroristic crime. If you can be talked into that, as an adult human being, we're probably better off as a society for not having you on the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
Rime posted:The whole refugee situation is a joke. It costs $30,000 USD to smuggle a person from Turkey to Canada, and if they can get Mr. Kurd & his family past immigration services then you can bet your rear end that a bunch of dedicated stone-cold terrorists bent on wreaking havoc will have little issue getting in here. But why would they bother doing so, when it's both infinitely easier and infinitely higher-profile to bomb their way through Europe? The border checkpoints between the EU and the eastern bloc / caucasus are laughable, the Ukraine is a loving sieve that you could slip an army through. The refugees that Canada will be accepting and resettling are not being smuggled here, you complete halfwit. You're falling for the same nonsense that anti-refugee people are, you're just reaching a different conclusion. EDIT: Full marks on managing to slip a Caucasus reference in, though. PT6A fucked around with this message at 04:43 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:The refugees that Canada will be accepting and resettling are not being smuggled here, you complete halfwit. You're falling for the same nonsense that anti-refugee people are, you're just reaching a different conclusion. Reading comprehension, bro. I am saying that there is little point in anyone tearing hair out over immigration through managed channels, when it's not prohibitive to bypass those systems in the slightest. And, again, there'd be little point for terrorists to bother with Canada in that regard since it's so very much easier to do that in Europe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
PT6A posted:In a sense, yes. I think there's something wrong with entrapping someone into committing a fundamentally non-violent action, like soliciting prostitution or buying/selling drugs, but I don't have nearly as much of a problem when people are convinced into doing a violent or terroristic crime. If you can be talked into that, as an adult human being, we're probably better off as a society for not having you on the street. You obviously know gently caress all about just how easily manipulated people can be, especially the mentally ill. It's way too loving easy to talk people into following through on bad ideas. This is the whole reason why we have so many rules regarding entrapment.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
EvilJoven posted:You obviously know gently caress all about just how easily manipulated people can be, especially the mentally ill. It's way too loving easy to talk people into following through on bad ideas. This is the whole reason why we have so many rules regarding entrapment. No, I do know how easily people can be manipulated, which is why if they can be manipulated into terrorism I don't want them to continue being a part of free society. Supervised mental health treatment would be a better idea than incarceration, though. EDIT: Bad ideas also come in different grades. "Oh sure, I'll go gently caress that hooker" is a bad idea, but "oh sure, I'll go set a bomb" is several orders of magnitude more of a bad idea. Rime posted:Reading comprehension, bro. I am saying that there is little point in anyone tearing hair out over immigration through managed channels, when it's not prohibitive to bypass those systems in the slightest. And, again, there'd be little point for terrorists to bother with Canada in that regard since it's so very much easier to do that in Europe. Fair enough, but the tone of your post really made it sound as if you were equating refugees with people being smuggled. Specifically, saying "if they can get Mr. Kurd and his family past the authorities" seemed to reference, specifically, refugees being smuggled. It's a separate issue, and I agree with you now that you've expressed yourself in a more understandable fashion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
My bad, I thought it wasn't that obtuse.  On a totally different note, has anyone noticed that the employment metrics in this country are a joke now? That's great that I can see the number of employed people, EI claimants, etc in a given field. Except the data is from 2012, which might as well be the 1990's as far as it is applicable four years later. Rime fucked around with this message at 06:23 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 06:18
|
|
|
be part of a systematic plot to frame you for terrorism? clearly you are not worthy of life, get thee to the gas chamber show up to work so piss-tank drunk that you murder someone? perfectly fine because MAH FREEDM
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 06:50
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree. I'm saying it would be dumb as gently caress to make it a revenue-neutral tax when there is literally no reason why that's a good idea. Absolutely those funds collected should be put toward things like public transit, instead of handed back out in the form of random other tax cuts. To clarify my earlier post: they're either criminally stupid for making it revenue-neutral, or a bunch of lying bastards for saying it's revenue-neutral when it's not. Either way, I hope they gently caress right off sooner rather than later. The goal of a revenue neutral carbon tax policy is to incentivize people and businesses into changing their behaviour. Everyone gets tax cuts, but only those that limit their carbon use actually benefit at the end of the day. Others have their tax cut savings eaten up by carbon tax. There is a moral duty to limit climate change but in addition to that the policy makes economic sense. It's a carrot and stick to try to get people, businesses and municipalities to become more efficient, and more competitive. Jurisdictions around the world are doing similar things, and Canadian businesses will be crushed if they do business as usual and never face pressure to adapt. Companies that can limit their carbon will be able to take advantage of tax cuts, and will be able to outcompete companies that can't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 07:02
|
|
|
There will be no Mr Kurd. Only Mr and Mrs Kurd. Canada apparently will not be taking single men. Sucks to be a gay man who didn't want to be a double refugee for trying to marry a man in the middle east.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Don't worry, there'll still be plenty of fellas.
|
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:02 |
|
|
Gus Hobbleton posted:be part of a systematic plot to frame you for terrorism? clearly you are not worthy of life, get thee to the gas chamber I didn't say this. I said I don't want you unsupervised on the street if you're ill enough to be talked into bombing things. Mental health treatment would be better than imprisonment. EDIT: Because some people don't understand the difference between terrorism and military action: I'm talking specifically about terrorist bombings, not bombings against military targets carried out by air forces in furtherance of a war. quote:show up to work so piss-tank drunk that you murder someone? perfectly fine because MAH FREEDM The gently caress are you on about now? No one ever said this; you've made up a fantasy in your head because you don't understand the concept of mens rea. cowofwar posted:There will be no Mr Kurd. Only Mr and Mrs Kurd. I'm kind of pissed off that a bunch of loud, stupid malcontents managed to push the government into this over nonsensical concerns over TERRORISTS! being admitted as refugees. PT6A fucked around with this message at 15:00 on Nov 23, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 23, 2015 14:51
|
|