|
I don't truly believe that when the Conservatives were talking about budgets and deficits, they were actually talking about the budget and the deficit. We might talked a lot about how Harper's line about Old Stock Canadians to be a dogwhistle, but I think we may have been mistaken. It missed the point of being a dogwhistle because when he said it everyone in the room, soon country, could hear it. Balanced budgets was the real dogwhistle: something that sounds perfectly reasonable to outsiders, but actually means something radically different to the conservative base. What balanced budget really meant was small government, in the American sense of the term. I can't truly believe that the conservative base really and honestly cared about the projections on the last line made in some piece of parliamentary procedural documentation. I suppose some of them might possibly be bond-holders for government debt and they were looking for a return on their investment, but how many people could those have been compared to the rest of the voters? When Harper talked about balanced budgets, what was meant was small government. That's why he could run a nine-year long large deficit and still get away with saying he's balanced the budget, because what he was truly talking about wasn't what he explicitly stated. Which is why when Mulcair talked about budgeting, it rang flat and hollow. It never meant what everyone else thought it meant, and nobody cared.
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 03:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
Jesus. I have three farm raised people on my Facebook, all are posting about Bill 6 and how bad it is that their kids won't work 60-90 hour work weeks. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 03:59
|
|
|
Sedge and Bee posted:Ok so class dynamics being what they are, the NDP cannot win without compromising its core values and by wholesale adopting balanced budget, no tax on rich orthodox economic ideologies. Why even bother with them then? Helsing basically reiterated my point that the Liberals benefit from a favourable ideological climate - I just want to clarify what that means for something like the budget debate. He also seems to be conceding that there wasn't much to gain from announcing a deficit budget, which I'd basically agree with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Jesus. I have three farm raised people on my Facebook, all are posting about Bill 6 and how bad it is that their kids won't work 60-90 hour work weeks. Assuming this is the bill you're talking about... http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/petition-against-alberta-farm-safety-1.3338226 quote:If Bill 6 is passed into law, Alberta farm and ranch workers would no longer be excluded from Occupational Health and Safety protection — a right already held by agricultural employees in every other province in Canada. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 04:14
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/howard-richmond-trial-verdict-1.3324961quote:A jury of 12 has found Canadian soldier Howard Richmond guilty of first-degree murder for stabbing his wife to death in July 2013. "I can't be responsible for stabbing my wife to death because I had PTSD"  yet another Good Canadian Boy thrown to the wolves smh abolish the cf already
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Welp, to quote my second-favourite Canadian TV show: "...I think that went well!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:03
|
|
|
THC posted:Oh? I didn't know the Liberals promised pharmacare. I must be delusional 'Reality' and the campaign promise are a terrible hill to die on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:05
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/howard-richmond-trial-verdict-1.3324961 The CF is more about wanton sexual abuse than domestic violence resulting in the death of spouses. Though I bet both are much higher than the national average.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:07
|
|
|
I seem to remember reading recently that incidents of reported sexual assaults involving military are lower than the general population. Culture of silence and all that though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
jm20 posted:The CF is more about wanton sexual abuse than domestic violence resulting in the death of spouses. Though I bet both are much higher than the national average. CF also doesn't give much of a poo poo about racism, sexism, or homo/transphobia despite claims of having a 'zero tolerance' policy for those kinds of discrimination. Didn't stop any soldiers on any of my courses or taskings from yelling 'human being' 4 dozen times a day and harassing female co-workers. I complained about it once and got sent to a loving chaplain. Good job guys, send the LBGT soldier to a catholic chaplain because he's the target of homophobic insults. Right on. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 06:52
|
|
|
So I've obviously got to respond to Helsing's excellent post, but first I should make a caveat: I'm moving apartments tomorrow and won't be able to reply until Monday at the earliest, when my internet gets set back up. Fortunately, this won't matter to the 99% of people who skim past posts this size (as I usually do).Helsing posted:Ok, first of all, given that the NDP just followed your strategy and proceeded to lose their best shot in history at forming government, perhaps a bit of humility on your part is called for. Your claims that a more openly leftwing NDP would only gain 15% of the vote is pure speculation: what isn't speculation is that Mulcair managed to lose the last election quite badly. The NDP also did very poorly in Ontario and BC when it tried to be a "serious" party in the way that you advocate, and Olivia Chow's mayoral bid crashed transformed a commanding lead into an embarrassing defeat after she tried to present herself as a socially conscious fiscal moderate focused on saving taxpayer money. Well, I certainly won't argue that the NDP ran good campaigns in Ontario or federally. They were boring, lacklustre campaigns. And both times, they lost to the Liberals. They should have presented a clear, exciting, alternative vision of what they'd do in government. But the success of the Liberals shows that you can run an exciting campaign without being particularly radical, or without even challenging the status quo in any substantive way. Basically, I think the NDP should have marketed themselves better. The Liberals, rather like Obama's Democrats, ran campaigns that presented moderately left-ish alternatives to a lovely right-wing opponent, and they did so in a bold, exciting way. That's what the NDP should've done to win an election. And that's honestly pretty depressing! I'm saying that voters weren't duped into believing that they were getting a real alternative to the capitalist/"neoliberal" status quo. They got exactly what they wanted: a moderate, centrist government that promises to maintain all the basic parts of the modern "neoliberal" political-economic systems (with neoliberal being in scare quotes because I've read too many academic articles arguing that neoliberalism died 15-20 years ago and we're actually living in post-neoliberalist world or whatever). Your average voter genuinely doesn't want a return to big-government embedded liberalism, and they don't want to overthrow the status quo. I honestly do wish things were different, but that's the way I see it. quote:Second of all, I think your comments here betray a profound lack of historical awareness. I mean this in two ways. First, you seem to completely ignore the extent to which the success of the NDP under Jack Layton was a direct reflection of the decline of the Liberal party. Layton's attempts to maneuver the NDP into being a credible alternative to the Liberals only made sense in the context of a declining Liberal party opening up space for a new centrist party. Now that the Liberals have rebounded you'll need to supply a convincing explanation for why it makes sense to continue running as Liberal-Lite. Why exactly would the mass of voters in Ontario choose the faux-Liberal party instead of the actual Liberal party? I feel like you're falling into the usual 1-D political thinking here, where they only way a party can distinguish themselves from another party is by moving to the left or right. The Liberals managed to run progressive (in the most milquetoast sense of the word) campaigns without mounting any strong challenge the usual order of things. They just used good messaging and hit the right note on a few key issues which are ultimately unimportant in the grand scheme of things. Jack's NDP was doing the same thing, even if their electoral success was mainly due to being neither red nor blue. By all appearances, that's what Canadians want! I'm arguing descriptively here, not prescriptively. I'm not saying that running a basically centrist campaign dressed up with exciting marketing is the most morally right thing to do- but I do think it's the best way to win elections. quote:However, there's also a second way in which I believe that you misread the historical moment. What your post makes me think of, more than anything else, is Francis Fukuyama declaring the "end of history". It's as though the political dynamics that have dominated the Canadian political scene in the last decade or two are some kind of ever present and changeless reality that all "mature" political parties must accommodate themselves to. I want to agree with you here, and honestly this is where I'm least sure of myself. You and the Tyee might be completely right. Maybe if the NDP had stuck to a hard-left stance, they could've rode the wave to forming a genuinely revolutionary government. Maybe they still could, next time such an opening arises (whenever that might be). Slavoj Zizek likes to say that every time a fascist party gets elected, it's a missed opportunity for the radical left. And he could well be right- it's hardly a testable proposition. Although I'll stick to my guns in saying that none of the past elections show any kind of revolutionary bent among the Canadian populace, whether fascist or leftist, and that includes the election in Alberta. I think- and this isn't a testable proposition either- that if there's a genuinely revolutionary sentiment in the electorate, it will lead to the creation of a revolutionary political party, or to an existing party being co-opted by revolutionaries, or (if the system is too ossified) to the overthrow of the democratic system itself- in any case, the political system will be dragged into following the will of the people. I think it's unlikely that a genuinely revolutionary moment will be squandered because it lacks support from the political elite- if only because any revolutionary moment should lack support from the political elite, almost by definition. The point of which is that a political party shouldn't be focused on anticipating, fomenting, or waiting for a popular revolutionary moment to strike. In a modern, representational democracy, I believe political parties are by their very nature tools of the status quo, and their job is to be the best tool possible given that status quo. If and when some kind of grand historical turning-point comes along, won't it find or create its own vanguard? Is it the NDP's job to be waiting in the wings for such a turning point to come along? Evidently, some people think that is precisely the NDP's job. But (and this is what I was trying to get at by referring to the party staff) none of the people who actually make up the party apparatus are remotely interested in taking on that role, and can you blame them? quote:I'm not even going to really address the idea that the interests of a couple hundred staffers should dominate the policy agenda of a supposedly national party. I mean... Jesus Christ dude, did that actually sound convincing when you typed it out? It's not as absurd as it sounds. Staffers have one interest: getting their candidate (re)-elected. And a "serious" national party- "serious" being used to exclude the Greens, Marxists, etc- exists to get as many candidates elected as possible. The interests of the staffers are important because they coincide with the interests of the party qua party. Just like a corporation acts to maximize profits, political parties act to maximize wins. And personally, I believe that a corp of professional staffers is very important to making an effective political party, much more important than having a good crop of candidates (who are a dime a dozen and frankly matter much less than people think). This is a descriptive point, not a prescriptive one- I'm not saying that the NDP "should" act to maximize its expected victories in a moral sense, any more than Wal-Mart "should" act to maximize expected profits. But to ask them to act any other way is tilting at windmills. quote:I don't even know how to respond to such a vague statement. Can you be specific? Give examples? The only concrete success of the centrist NDP that you've listed is keeping a bunch of staffers employed. I worded that badly- what I meant to say is that staffers are important precisely because they do far more work for the party than any amateur possibly could. This is based solely off my experience with a handful of ridings in Southwestern Ontario, but I suspect it applies everywhere. Staffers, at least the ones I know, are really really important to the functioning of the party, moreso than an outsider would think, because they wear a lot of different hats. Obviously as constituency assistants, legislative assistants, and other party officials, they serve important roles. Less obviously, each staffer also occupies a key position on one or more riding association executives. Along with the president of the riding association, the staffers are generally the only ones who know how to get anything done, because they have access to all the resources and know all the important local people. They also occupy key positions in other sundry party bodies that nominally represent the membership, like regional, provincial and federal executives, which are very important yet far too boring for any ordinary human to get seriously involved in. To top it all off they play important roles whenever a convention or council roles around- even if they aren't delegates themselves, they do most of the heavy lifting when it comes to forming coalitions, telling delegates how to vote and proposing resolutions. They're among the few people nerdy enough to know how Robert's Rules of Order work. Oh, and by the way, all the staffers I knew also donated the maximum allowable amount to the party. Personally, I think that a lot of that work qualifies as genuinely useful organizing; you might disagree. Even if it's not "leftist" or "progressive," the point is that any one of these folks is a hundred times more important to the party than the disgruntled 60-year-old who shows up to meetings once a month, and they're a thousand times more important than an actual voter. quote:Wait, what? Who will "just vote Liberals" instead? Am I understanding you correctly? Are you really saying that those ahrd working staffers who have staked their careers on the NDP are going to vote Liberal? Not only does this make no sense, but even if it's true why do I care? You're describing an insignificant portion of the electorate here unless I'm hugely misunderstanding you. What I'm saying is that, in the unlikely event that the NDP adopted a strategy that pissed off all the party insiders, professionals and staffers, they would go work for the Liberals. Which, I think, would be a disaster. quote:You're going to have to explain this one to me. Are you suggesting that Syriza's difficulties are related to them somehow not having more professional political staffers? Can you actually provide some evidence for that assertion? And how does your analysis deal with the actual political and economic position of Greece vis-a-vis its creditors and the Troika? Syriza made some stupid unforced errors while they were negotiating that bailout package- making concessions they didn't have to, issuing ultimatums and then immediately backing down, and (IIRC) obviously not fully understanding their own demands or the bailout package they were rejecting. They would reject offers when they were in a position of strength and make demands when they were in a position of weakness. Their negotiating partners in the Troika were more bemused and frustrated than they were actually challenged. I can't remember the details terribly well, and I'll admit I might be getting a skewed picture from the media coverage, but I do think the lack of actual political experience in Syriza hurt them. And, of course, the whole affair ended with Tsipras very publicly backing down from his negotiating position even after he'd won the domestic referendum. quote:Why [is free tuition a terrible policy]? This post is already way too long to do this point justice. Briefly, though: free tuition would only worsen the issue of "degree inflation" that's led us to the point where you need a BA just to do generic administrative work. It would hasten the trend of turning universities into over- funded degree mills, or starve them of funding, or force them to rely even more on international students for tuition money, each of which is bad for different reasons. Mostly, though, I think university increasingly serves as a daycare for 18-23 year olds who spend $600 of their parents money on a single History of Russian Folklore class just because it "sounds cool" and "they need it for a breadth requirement," and making the government assume liability for the whole thing will only worsen that problem. What, me, bitter about my university experience? Not at all. PS: Helsing, you're a Toronto goon right? If you ever get plat send me a PM, we can go out for a beer or something 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 09:24
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:So, who thinks Newfoundland and Labrador will be a complete sweep for the Liberals? I very much doubt a complete sweep. It's possible for the NDP to lose all their seats (I don't consider that the most likely outcome, but very possible), but I don't see the Liberals picking up every PC seat.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 10:01
|
|
|
The NDP were a non-force this election and anyone with half a brain saw they were going to get stomped. They had no real platform on top of having to deal with the Cult of JT. The only real surprise was our East Coast clearly telling Harper to get hosed. Actually, a good majority of the country were apparently tired of having their corn flakes pissed in and decided to tell Harper to gently caress off  .
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:07
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:But then what would be the next occupation you'd bitch about? Firefighters? I mean, they're so goddamn hot with their shirts off and sit around and do nothing all day till a call. Goddamn bastards. Yknow Im super curious what industry you work in CI. The Kwan Abuse Recovery Centre, where he is the only employee and likes to call himself to bitch/moan/cry and tell himself that it will be alright.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:09
|
|
|
THC posted:Balanced budgets are good though and they are not the solely the domain of evil neoliberals. They seriously downplayed any increased revenue initiatives and resisted higher echelon income taxes as well though. Corporate tax rates make you anti business, income tax rates make you anti rich, and a lot more people are cool with being anti rich. It didn't need to be an austerity plank, but they made it look like one buy leading with it rather than increasing revenues.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Ron Paul Atreides posted:They seriously downplayed any increased revenue initiatives and resisted higher echelon income taxes as well though. Corporate tax rates make you anti business, income tax rates make you anti rich, and a lot more people are cool with being anti rich. The NDP's aversion to raising personal income tax rates is mystifying to me, and I think it ties into their confused status as a party. The NDP are nominally a social democratic party, in that they theoretically want to put in place a socioeconomic system reminiscent of the Nordic social democratic states or the vision of society presented by parties like Germany's SDP or Bernie Sanders's democratic socialism. In the world today, we have examples of highly successful social democratic states, in the form of the Nordic countries. In fact, when social democrats like myself actually have any evidence for why we want to enact policies like national childcare or free university tuition (rather than just a feeling that such a policy would be a moral good, or theoretical thinking about how such a policy would work), it's usually based on policies that have been successfully enacted in countries like Sweden that have empirically worked and worked better than the alternatives. In the Nordic states, the taxation system is to have (relatively) low corporate tax rates and (relatively) high personal income tax rates (compared to other European countries). There are a few reasons why this is beneficial: first of all, the outside-investor effect: corporations don't give a poo poo how much individuals get taxed. When deciding where to invest their money, some CEO whose income is recorded in a tax haven somewhere does not care about personal income tax when they are deciding which country to establish their new branch in, since they themselves are not paying any income tax there, but their corporation may be liable for the corporate taxes. What they care about is the corporate taxation scheme in that place. So having low corporate taxes attracts outside investment regardless of your personal taxation scheme. However, once that outside investment has established itself, all the money it pays in salaries to its staff are then taxed at a heavy rate. The end result is that corporations operate in Nordic countries because they have low tax rates, but the people they employ (who have nowhere near as much financial mobility as the corporation) pay high tax rates to support the large state. Second, people are much worse at evading tax than corporations. You can safely assume very few major corporations are actually going to pay their full tax rate, whereas outside the extremely wealthy individuals generally do. Less tax avoidance means higher tax revenue which means more money to be spent on social democratic programs and policies. The NDP then have this backwards, seemingly (to me at least) because they care more about the optics of their proposals than they do about their actual effects. The optics of the Nordic taxation system seem backwards to people who don't know how the system works: "They're taking money out of my pocket but letting the corporations get rich" etc. But it works better than our system. And, seemingly, either the NDP doesn't recognize that their tax policies are the inverse of successful social democracies, or they're more concerned about seeming like they're taxing corporations while giving the *~middle class~* a tax break than they are about proposing effective policies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Two thoughts One, this makes me happy to be Canadian. The synagogue helping not the arson I mean. Two, when I am done my semester, who would like to see me make a Helsing style effort post on how the LPC won from an insider? I will not spare punches about our fuckups, but I would also like to note that the LPC win was not entirely based on the NDP vote collapse. It was a factor, especially in Quebec, but there is alot more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:05
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Two thoughts One, this makes me happy to be Canadian. The synagogue helping not the arson I mean. Two, when I am done my semester, who would like to see me make a Helsing style effort post on how the LPC won from an insider? I will not spare punches about our fuckups, but I would also like to note that the LPC win was not entirely based on the NDP vote collapse. It was a factor, especially in Quebec, but there is alot more. That'd be really interesting, but it kind of seems like the biggest contributor to the LPC winning and the NDP crashing was the sudden appearance of a million pissed off canadians voting for whoever would beat Harper. Which seems like kind of a hard thing to predict. I mean, I'm not saying the individual campaigns didn't matter (well, the CPC campaign didn't matter), just that I think whoever most polls said was going to win on october 19'th were going to win, because that entire voting block was going to align with the polls. The polls that are complete garbage and don't actually reflect reality. Edit: actually I'm an idiot that hasn't actually looked at the popular vote numbers, and it looks like they also picked up a million votes from the NDP. egg tats fucked around with this message at 15:32 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:11
|
|
|
senae posted:That'd be really interesting, but it kind of seems like the biggest contributor to the LPC winning and the NDP crashing was the sudden appearance of a million pissed off canadians voting for whoever would beat Harper. Which seems like kind of a hard thing to predict. that's unfair to the Liberals actually; just like with the Obama surges one of the big ways to make gains is get-out-the-vote initiatives and ground games which the Liberals focused pretty well on
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:15
|
|
|
Stanley Pain posted:The NDP were a non-force this election and anyone with half a brain saw they were going to get stomped. They had no real platform on top of having to deal with the Cult of JT. The only real surprise was our East Coast clearly telling Harper to get hosed. Actually, a good majority of the country were apparently tired of having their corn flakes pissed in and decided to tell Harper to gently caress off Cool story. Did you actually put money on the Liberals winning before the election started? Who successfully predicted how it would end (and why) before the campaign began, if the outcome was so blindingly obvious? Precambrian Video Games fucked around with this message at 15:57 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Cool story. Did you actually put money on the Liberals winning before the election started? Who successfully predicted how it would end (and why) before the campaign began, if the outcome was so blindingly obvious? I think it was pretty clear what was going to happen about half way through the campaign. When the niqab debate didn't get laughed off I lost my optimism for an NDP win. It highlighted some of the serious issues with their campaign more than being an actual issue. (I say naively.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:08
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Welp, to quote my second-favourite Canadian TV show: "...I think that went well!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Cool story. Did you actually put money on the Liberals winning before the election started? Who successfully predicted how it would end (and why) before the campaign began, if the outcome was so blindingly obvious? I was fairly confident of a Liberal minority and did in fact make some friendly wagers in regards to that with a few of the finance folk at work here. I've been able to smugly collect on that . What was very surprising was the landslide of red that happened on the East Coast. No one saw that coming. During the election the predictions went from Liberal minority to majority within the blink of an eye. What also surprised me is how a-typical our apathy was on election day.Regarding the NDP, they were a non factor in this election. They just straight up fell flat on their face and the polls showed that throughout most of the election (granted that polls aren't the be all, end all gauge). I'm hard pressed to even remember anything of "worth" that was said during the election from that camp and I do try to pay attention to these things .
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:13
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Cool story. Did you actually put money on the Liberals winning before the election started? Who successfully predicted how it would end (and why) before the campaign began, if the outcome was so blindingly obvious? Oooooh ooooh oooooh! I did! I did! See the toxx thread! But it is a good point. When the campaign started it was by no means a sure thing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Just to prove the Conservatives aren't the only ones who can make bad statute law, the SCC just struck down the portions of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act that make it an offense to work on a boat run by snakeheads.quote:http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/in-key-judgments-scc-defines-people-smuggling-1.2676895 Seems to me like this is a fair and pretty obvious ruling - once you're on a ship at sea your moral imperative to keep everyone on the ship as alive as possible until they reach their destination outstrips your legal obligation to not help people illegally immigrate to Canada. Definately read the comment's becau'se their good. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 17:13 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:But then what would be the next occupation you'd bitch about? Firefighters? I mean, they're so goddamn hot with their shirts off and sit around and do nothing all day till a call. Goddamn bastards. Yknow Im super curious what industry you work in CI. Sup bro? U OK? You know there's more to life than living out your milspec tacticool wet dreams vicariously through a bunch of self diagnosed PTSD bitch asses
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Sup bro? U OK? You know there's more to life than living out your milspec tacticool wet dreams vicariously through a bunch of self diagnosed PTSD bitch asses Oh man, this is gonna be the best slap fight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:36
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Sup bro? U OK? You know there's more to life than living out your milspec tacticool wet dreams vicariously through a bunch of self diagnosed PTSD bitch asses I think the court's point was that being clinically diagnosed with PTSD by an actual medical doctor doesn't give you free rein to murder your wife, especially under circumstances that'd lead someone to want to murder her and then cover it up with a series of absurd lies.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Two thoughts One, this makes me happy to be Canadian. The synagogue helping not the arson I mean. Two, when I am done my semester, who would like to see me make a Helsing style effort post on how the LPC won from an insider? I will not spare punches about our fuckups, but I would also like to note that the LPC win was not entirely based on the NDP vote collapse. It was a factor, especially in Quebec, but there is alot more. I would love to read this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:43
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
Oh Marc Garneau
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Two thoughts One, this makes me happy to be Canadian. The synagogue helping not the arson I mean. Two, when I am done my semester, who would like to see me make a Helsing style effort post on how the LPC won from an insider? I will not spare punches about our fuckups, but I would also like to note that the LPC win was not entirely based on the NDP vote collapse. It was a factor, especially in Quebec, but there is alot more. Yes please
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Two thoughts One, this makes me happy to be Canadian. The synagogue helping not the arson I mean. Two, when I am done my semester, who would like to see me make a Helsing style effort post on how the LPC won from an insider? I will not spare punches about our fuckups, but I would also like to note that the LPC win was not entirely based on the NDP vote collapse. It was a factor, especially in Quebec, but there is alot more.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Sup bro? U OK? You know there's more to life than living out your milspec tacticool wet dreams vicariously through a bunch of self diagnosed PTSD bitch asses "I HATE VETERANS" its ok im jenny kwan
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:I think the court's point was that being clinically diagnosed with PTSD by an actual medical doctor doesn't give you free rein to murder your wife, especially under circumstances that'd lead someone to want to murder her and then cover it up with a series of absurd lies. That would have been a shitfest to sift through. There was clear evidence of prior violent episodes with some dissociation in response to triggers (punching walls and saying names), but to determine if that had happened in that case, and whether that has bearing on whether he ought to have been aware of that is no small thing. I can't say I am surprised at the result, nor would I care for the precedent set by the case being found NCRMD. If he was found NCRMD I doubt he would ever be released, as I don't think his PTSD is in question and in order to be released that would have to be found managed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Excelsiortothemax posted:Jesus. I have three farm raised people on my Facebook, all are posting about Bill 6 and how bad it is that their kids won't work 60-90 hour work weeks. No more free unlimited labour pretty much.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
So what you're saying is the military has violent people, or that violent people join the military. Colour me surprised 
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
jm20 posted:So what you're saying is the military has violent people, or that violent people join the military. Colour me surprised Good Canadian Boys who should be given a break.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:That would have been a shitfest to sift through. There was clear evidence of prior violent episodes with some dissociation in response to triggers (punching walls and saying names), but to determine if that had happened in that case, and whether that has bearing on whether he ought to have been aware of that is no small thing. I can't say I am surprised at the result, nor would I care for the precedent set by the case being found NCRMD. If he was found NCRMD I doubt he would ever be released, as I don't think his PTSD is in question and in order to be released that would have to be found managed. And good luck taking someone from "murder your wife for no reason" levels of PTSD to "generally regarded as safe". His PTSD was well-documented, the guy was definitely suffering and his life was miserable. She took him being out of action as an opportunity to get out there and have some fun, he found out she was screwing around on him and I think Elmo can take the prosecution from here. Suffering from PTSD doesn't make you incapable of getting murderously angry for things that would also piss off sane people. Also when you're going for an NCR verdict, generally you want to build a case out of something other than complete bullshit that you obviously made up after the fact From reading the description of what his life was like in the months leading up to it, I have to wonder if he was getting the help he needed because it sounds like his life really, really sucked. jm20 posted:So what you're saying is the military has violent people, or that violent people join the military. Colour me surprised Pretty sure he was a geo tech. flakeloaf fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Nov 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:01 |
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Pretty sure he was a geo tech. Extremely violent, obvious due to the job where he brutally and mercilessly slaughtered hundreds of inaccurate GPS survey points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 27, 2015 19:00
|
|