|
Lassitude posted:Should be fired for trying to influence politics as a member of the CAF imo You'd like to see this government employee muzzled from talking to the media?
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Also, did this get mentioned? I think this is to appease the airlines who were responsible for bearing the cost of removal for individuals immigration has denied entry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
I think the CDS is qualified to observe that yes, stopping ISIS is a moral imperative. Hillier said worse about the Taliban and he didn't qualify his comments with talk about how there could be a non-military solution and he fared just fine.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Lassitude posted:Canada's top general is having trouble hiding his war boner: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/12/18/radicalized-militants-are-enemy-of-our-time-top-general-warns.html You chose a pretty lovely part to quote if you want to show General Vance craving the deaths of terrorists, considering he says right there radicalized messaging can be defeated in many ways, not necessarily arms and weapons. But no, you're right, he's probably brooding over a skull-chalice of port right now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:You chose a pretty lovely part to quote if you want to show General Vance craving the deaths of terrorists, considering he says right there radicalized messaging can be defeated in many ways, not necessarily arms and weapons.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Conservative riding association had $95k missing. Whoops./
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I think this is to appease the airlines who were responsible for bearing the cost of removal for individuals immigration has denied entry. Just out of curiosity, what kind of individuals from visa-waiver countries are denied entry?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
I'm tired of you guys riding the CF for wanting to bust their war nut!!! Have some respect for out good old Canadian Boys
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
Canada doesn't need an army tbh.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:31
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:Just out of curiosity, what kind of individuals from visa-waiver countries are denied entry? A prime example is someone obtains a visitors visa but is actually here to work. It might also happen in the case that someone doesn't have the funds or financial support to stay the full length of their visitors visa.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
more like dICK posted:Canada doesn't need an army tbh. Armies are good to have around for the extra manpower and equipment that can be deployed during domestic environmental emergencies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Man, I want that. I just have a coffee mug full of rum right now. Have a chug for me because let the patronage appointments begin and where better to start than ex-OLP cabinet ministers hell yeah  http://blogs.canoe.com/davidakin/politics/let-the-patronage-begin-trudeaus-first-appointment-is-a-top-ontario-liberal/
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Armies are good to have around for the extra manpower and equipment that can be deployed during domestic environmental emergencies. Exactly, letting them carry guns and shoot brown people is just a bonus.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Have a chug for me because let the patronage appointments begin and where better to start than ex-OLP cabinet ministers hell yeah Uh this is clearly merit based.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Armies are good to have around for the extra manpower and equipment that can be deployed during domestic environmental emergencies. I agree, but frankly they don't need to know how to kill to save lives during emergencies. e: I would support mandatory military service if it entailed emergency training rather than military training. Have a standing group available to combat fires, floods, snow storms or whatever. Teach first aid, survival sutff, maybe basic construction techniques and so forth. Having people that don't just panic in emergencies is useful even after they've done their year or whatever, and I think not a terribly bad thing for an 18 year old to go through. Count Roland fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
The Butcher posted:Armies are good to have around for the extra manpower and equipment that can be deployed during domestic environmental emergencies. The Germans had it right when they gave all their soldiers broomsticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
Count Roland posted:I agree, but frankly they don't need to know how to kill to save lives during emergencies. It can be both kinds of training you know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:44
|
|
|
Feel free to comment on the case above.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
jm20 posted:It can be both kinds of training you know. Yeah. But if the argument is "oh these people are so useful for emergencies" then why give weapons training? The military is where you go if you want to learn to kill people. As you might imagine, this is a turn off for many. A place where you learn to make a tourniquet and help your fellow citizen dig out from snow storms has all the fuzzy nationalist  connotations, but without the violence. Sounds decent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:49
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
In the military the people who kill people and are trained to kill people are a tiny minority. Most are like trades types jobs or computer stuff or loving web developers. They all exist to support the people who kill people, and fix and maintain the infrastructure needed to support said killers. I actually know a surprising amount of military people, and they're all just working class shlubs fixing engines or doing accounting or computer stuff. None of them give a poo poo about the military, "the mission" or patriotic garbage and would try to quit before they had to kill anyone or really deploy outside of Canada. It's an easy job with a fantastic pension and benefits and that's it. One dude is an officer and excited to see combat and fight bad guys and "help people" but he's the minority. Police, yeah, that's 100% people who want to power trip and shoot bad guys because all cops end up as front line soldiers on the war on crime, you can't become a cop and spend your entire career fixing police cars or maintaining the police website.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
I was asking if you thought the above case where some driver, 'possibly' dui, got 4 months for killing a child. Let's ignore the DUI portion for a moment, is justice served with this sentence, 4 months for a childs life? Was it a horrific 'vehicle' accident? I still think instances where people die and vehicles are involved are not sentenced as punitively as they should be.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
I'm unclear as to why he got 4 months then. Either he did something wrong, for which 4 months is not an acceptable punishment, or he didn't. In the latter case 4 months is too much.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
I haven't quite come to a conclusive yes or no from this answer. Mens rea certainly has it's place in law, and even if there was no intent you would therefore agree with the terms imposed on that person?Jordan7hm posted:I'm unclear as to why he got 4 months then. Either he did something wrong, for which 4 months is not an acceptable punishment, or he didn't. In the latter case 4 months is too much. Perhaps he failed to signal while driving over the child 
Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:37 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:I'm unclear as to why he got 4 months then. Either he did something wrong, for which 4 months is not an acceptable punishment, or he didn't. In the latter case 4 months is too much. Maybe, just maybe, there are gradations of wrongness in one's intended/wilful behaviour (and its intended or recklessly ignored consequences) that are accounted for when deciding punishments for that behaviour? I haven't dug into the details of this case, granted, but from the way it's described ITT it sounds like they couldn't prove impairment (or the judge didn't believe impairment based on the available evidence), so sentencing guidelines fell back to a lesser offence. Is that broadly correct? vvv yeah, I hate getting into discussions on cases I can't read because media reports gloss over everything that might possibly make an outwardly outrageous decision make sense. Dallan Invictus fucked around with this message at 23:33 on Dec 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:29
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
Dallan Invictus posted:Maybe, just maybe, there are gradations of wrongness in one's intended/wilful behaviour (and its intended or recklessly ignored consequences) that are accounted for when deciding punishments for that behaviour? Yes, and I don't think anyone is saying there aren't. But if someone is saying it's worthy of punishment at all, I'm saying 4 months isn't close to enough. If that person is saying it's not worthy of punishment at all, then so be it, that's a different argument. ^^^^^ the written decision is linked in one of the articles about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Yes, and I don't think anyone is saying there aren't. But if someone is saying it's worthy of punishment at all, I'm saying 4 months isn't close to enough. It's entirely possible for someone to drive badly and violate traffic laws in a way that would only merits months in prison (or even less) while still injuring or killing someone in some way that was neither intended nor reasonably expected. I can't say that's what the judge thought happened because the reasons for decision aren't available to me. (edit: oh, so they are. Guess I'll look when I get home.) But I can say that it's possible and that this obviously won't make the bereaved family happy. But nothing could! And the courts aren't here to vindicate victims, at least not that sole goal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Have a chug for me because let the patronage appointments begin and where better to start than ex-OLP cabinet ministers hell yeah I'm having a hard time getting angry about patronage appointments on an interim basis. hel;p
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:44
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2015 23:51
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:I'm having a hard time getting angry about patronage appointments on an interim basis. hel;p Just get a little bit angry to build up the tolerance for when he makes Mcguinty a senator.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:00
|
|
|
Dude was kidnapped and had his loving thumb cut off. I think in this case we've gotten our pound of flesh out of the guy. For me it's not this specific case, just our very lax cultural and legal attitudes towards driving and road safety. Driving should not be mandatory to be a functional adult in our society outside of a few neighbourhoods of a few big cities, and driving should be taken a lot more seriously where it's harder to get a license and easier to lose it. But because everyone has to drive to work and or they'll actually starve to death in their suburbs we can't have stricter driving laws because even the worst driver who should never be given control of a huge vehicle has no alternative, so the bar has to be set that low. Like still every time someone is run down by a driver not paying attention it's always "why didn't that pedestrian look???" "You can't just walk blindly into the street even if you have a green!". There's still a ton of victim blaming and excuses for the perpetrator. Totally unpredictable accidents do happen, but in almost every case they are avoidable by simply paying full attention to driving, treating every second like it's a terrifying life or death situation, and making sure your vehicle is in safe working order. Just "I wasn't paying attention" is an accepted valid excuse. It should be criminal negligence. Treat them a few steps below commercial pilots or something. You don't have to ban people for life, but if you rear end someone, or hit a pedestrian, or get into any accident you could have possibly avoided it should involve an actual investigation where you have to prove it was unavoidable and were following all rules to the letter or else your license is instantly taken away and you need to start from scratch to get it back, which should involve fairly lengthy and intense training.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Dude was kidnapped and had his loving thumb cut off. I think in this case we've gotten our pound of flesh out of the guy. For me it's not this specific case, just our very lax cultural and legal attitudes towards driving and road safety. Driving should not be mandatory to be a functional adult in our society outside of a few neighbourhoods of a few big cities, and driving should be taken a lot more seriously where it's harder to get a license and easier to lose it. On the other hand, reckless jaywalking is absolutely a problem on dark rainy Vancouver nights and it's not always the driver's fault.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
That case above isn't over and the guy who walked will basically be killed by the family it seems. CLAM DOWN posted:On the other hand, reckless jaywalking is absolutely a problem on dark rainy Vancouver nights and it's not always the driver's fault. Regarding jaywalking, it's especially hilarious when people themselves wear dark clothes at night and fail to properly ensure their own safety when walking (listening to music, failing to look both ways, etc).
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:23
|
|
|
jm20 posted:That case above isn't over and the guy who walked will basically be killed by the family it seems. What proportion of pedestrian fatalities happen while the pedestrian was jaywalking vs legally crossing where they have the right of way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 00:27
|
|
|
Lead out in cuffs posted:What proportion of pedestrian fatalities happen while the pedestrian was jaywalking vs legally crossing where they have the right of way? I don't think anyone has that number, but pedestrians are a relatively small percentage of fatalities in MV incidents anyway. 14% or so out of all road users in 2013. IMO "reckless pedestrian" is just hugely overblown by motorists at large. Just another thing motorists get unduly outraged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:07
|
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:On the other hand, reckless jaywalking is absolutely a problem on dark rainy Vancouver nights and it's not always the driver's fault. It is my one of bigger annoyances with this city, which I was reminded of again as I almost killed a dude just last night.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 10:20 |
|
|
rrrrrrrrrrrt posted:I don't think anyone has that number, but pedestrians are a relatively small percentage of fatalities in MV incidents anyway. 14% or so out of all road users in 2013. No one is overblowing it or getting outraged, it was just worth a mention because it's an actual problem here.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2015 01:10
|
|