|
Slightly Toasted posted:Nope Ontario claimed it and we don't want it I just want Kenora to become full of the one thing it hates more than Natives. 'Tobans.
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
CLAM DOWN posted:The time is now for Cascadia No way. City-State Metro Vancouver + Sea-To-Sky Corridor to Pemberton, but gently caress Abbotsford. The Southern Gulf Islands and Vancouver Island can join too if they exile Elizabeth May.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
Femtosecond posted:Albertans made the political choice to barely tax themselves and barely set aside any oil revenue. Why should the rest of Canada bail them out from the results of their terrible decisions? We either bail them out with the hope they stay in Mordor, or they will spill forth from the black gates to pillage job markets across our nation. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 08:13
|
|
|
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/01/15/style/canada-justin-trudeau-cool.htmlquote:But the notion that our neighbor to the north is a frozen cultural wasteland populated with hopelessly unstylish citizens is quickly becoming so outdated as to be almost offensive Uh.... I'm so glad we're hip now
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
NDP leader Tom Mulcair last month disclosed that he is carrying mortgages on four separate properties, including a “secondary residence” in Quebec City, but has been living out of a suitcase when in Ottawa.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 14:07
|
|
|
So Canadian he can feel it in his loans
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:NDP leader Tom Mulcair last month disclosed that he is carrying mortgages on four separate properties, including a “secondary residence” in Quebec City, but has been living out of a suitcase when in Ottawa. Wow that isn't very fiscally responsible, I guess we dodged a bullet there Or maybe that would have helped him in the election, who knows
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:NDP leader Tom Mulcair last month disclosed that he is carrying mortgages on four separate properties, including a “secondary residence” in Quebec City, but has been living out of a suitcase when in Ottawa. He's just maximizing his chances for a Senate position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Paging jm20 http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/2016/01/12/sergeant-demoted-for-impaired-driving-conviction Saw it, not impressed. Bunch of vehicle Kafka Esq. posted:I grit my teeth any time I hear that.  You'd think someone that educates others about DUI would've known better than to commit the same crime. Thankfully this story has a happy ending where no one dies. Kafka Esq. posted:I meant the part where it doesn't reflect on her conduct as a member of the police. A breathalyzer cop getting busted at 2x the legal limit - off duty or not - has hosed up as a member of the police. :yase: Maybe we should implement a mandatory change via the MoT to have a 3 strike system whereby you become banned from driving for life for DUI irrespective of your 'life circumstances'. I think MADD even has some sort of document about this too. http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD_Canada_Sentencing_Framework_FINAL.pdf Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:43
|
|
|
Calgary still manages to have one, and sometimes two of its Costcos in the top 10 daily sales reports world wide. Calgarians somehow manage to spend over $2,000,000 at Costco every loving day of the year. I'm not certain if those numbers are equalized to USD or not. Also St. John's. These people are supposed to be poor. Anyway thx Alberta for ensuring I have job security.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:NDP leader Tom Mulcair last month disclosed that he is carrying mortgages on four separate properties, including a “secondary residence” in Quebec City, but has been living out of a suitcase when in Ottawa. The leader of the NDP is the stripper from The Big Short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:51
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 16:51 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Alcoholism is a disease. That said we should take steps to alleviate placing the public at unnecessary risk, driving isn't a right.
Somebody fucked around with this message at 16:56 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 16:58
|
|
|
While the circumstances are a bit different I found the following story on the Democratic primary called to mind some of the miscalculations made by Mulcair and his team during the last election. The circumstances here are obviously different but I thought the following passage was particularly interesting:quote:“Hillary is a pragmatic progressive — she’s not an advocate,” said Gov. Peter Shumlin of Vermont, who last week campaigned in Iowa for Mrs. Clinton over his home-state senator Mr. Sanders. “She quietly pulls people together and gets things done. Even though that’s not in vogue right now, I think that’s what voters will want in the end.” Again there are lots of caveats here. Clinton still leads in national polls of Democratic voters and her institutional advantages are hard to overstate. Nevertheless a story like this calls to mind both Mulcair's failed campaign and these stories from Britain about how the Blairites totally under estimated Corbyn's appeal: quote:Candidates had to win the support of 35 Labour MPs formally to enter the leadership race when nominations opened in June. While the circumstances in each of these cases is different the common element seems to be a severe misreading of what voters (be they primary voters or general election voters) were looking for. Right now we seem to have a crop of leaders -- the vast majority of them born between roughly 1945 and 1975 -- who came of age in the late 20th century as the left was in full retreat. They were people who participated in the movements to "modernize" their respective parties (not quite true in Mulcair's case but very true for much of the rest of the NDP), which in practice meant adopting a Blairite third way stance. This approach succeeded pretty well right up until the point it stopped succeeding. But now we're stuck with people whose entire lives -- and careers -- have been caught up in this "end of history" mentality that seems to make them simply awful at understanding that voters today are not the same as voters in the 1990s or 2000s. That's not to say that there's some huge hunger among voters for a hard left platform or that the only thing holding Mulcair back in the election was that he didn't advocate "full communism now!" After all, it's far from clear Corbyn can win a general election or that Sanders can win the primary. But what we are seeing is a generalized anti-incumbent mood, and a hunger for a break with the recent past. The same dynamics are playing out in the Republican race as well with the rise of Trump. So the real question to me is whether the NDP, either provincially or federally, actually has the capacity to tap in to any of that energy. At the moment I doubt it: it seems like it would essentially involve everyone who is currently in a position of power in the NDP admitting that they were wrong, and quite possibly sacrificing their future career prospects. Nevertheless, it's something to watch for, especially those of us who retain our party memberships and try to work from within the party as well as without.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:34 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Yes of course, lets base our criminal justice and rehabilitation systems off of an arbitrary baseball metaphor It's not for incarceration, it's to revoke their drivers license permanently. Being a drivers license holder isn't a right, and has nothing to do with a persons ability to rehabilitate from alcoholism.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:36
|
|
. It's worked oh so well in the United States.
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Yes of course, lets base our criminal justice and rehabilitation systems off of an arbitrary baseball metaphor Four downs and you turnover your license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
jm20 posted:It's not for incarceration, it's to revoke their drivers license permanently. Being a drivers license holder isn't a right, and has nothing to do with a persons ability to rehabilitate from alcoholism. I don't really have a strong position one way or the other on revoking licenses or making it harder to drive but you repeatedly saying "being a drivers license holder isn't a right" is totally unconvincing. What constitutes a "right" is socially determined and changes over time. Some areas has already moving toward viewing internet access as a right on the basis that you cannot fully participate in society or reliably find gainful employment without internet access. Many would argue that things like home heating or refrigeration should also be rights, even though it would have been absurd to claim this back in the 19th century. Many would say that living in a clean and safe building and having pure food and water devoid of contaminants is a right, etc. So speaking as someone who is not necessarily opposed to what you're arguing: you really aren't convincing me with this whole "driving is a privilege, not a right" talk. Rights are what we choose to make them, and one such right should be the right to fully participate in your local community. If it's really imperative that we take away someone's ability to drive then so be it, but part of that process, at least longer term, involves reducing dependency on cars in general. Because if you try to tell me someone in a rural area has no "right" to drive it makes me really skeptical of the rest of your position. Keep in mind rights are not absolute. I have a right to free movement that can be taken away if I commit a serious offense and am incarcerated. So it's not as though acknowledging a right to mobility is going to fatally damage our ability to lock people up for drunk driving or to suspend their licenses.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Saw it, not impressed. Bunch of vehicle The canlii for this one is pretty good, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2015/2015oncj403/2015oncj403.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJZWRnZWNvbWJlAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2 3 hours between the accident and breathalzying, she tried to gently caress with the machines knowing how they work (22 attempts to provide 2 samples) and featured this exchange.  : The question is should you have been driving? : I didn’t know what my reading level was that night, so I couldn’t tell if I was over .80.: In hindsight….: In terms of it, in hindsight, now that I know what my readings are, yes because my readings were over .80.: Right. Shouldn’t been driving, right?: But I didn’t have any way of knowing that at that night that I was over .80.: Because you felt fine?: Yes."Accepting responsibility" Postess with the Mostest fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Jan 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:54
|
|
|
apatheticman posted:I have some important news So hard to bite my tongue. I don't want to get into public spats but my sarcasm is bubbling over.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Even if alcoholism is a disease, and I believe it is, that doesn't mean we shouldn't be able to restrict driving rights as a result. There's plenty of people with diseases or conditions, or who take medications, that preclude them from driving either all the time or under certain conditions. It's really super-duper easy to not drink and drive, even if you abuse alcohol! Short of being the sort of alcoholic who has to be drunk almost all the time (which I don't think is honestly that many people) there's no reason you can't be an alcoholic who always drives sober, and if you are drunk all the time, you simply shouldn't drive at all.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dogs-shot-manitoba-first-nations-1.3408167?__vfz=tc%3D14W28bPhRA_ So far the takeaway I've seen people have this so far is "gently caress First Nations, why are they so mean to animals, we should hunt and kill them!" Rather than "First Nations can barely take care of themselves and as a result the dog population is out of control and no one has answers. Opinion A is why Canada will always be awful. quote:A dog rescuer who has visited a number of Manitoba First Nations is petitioning the provincial government to help remote communities manage stray dogs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
I can't be a commercial pilot because I'm colour blind. It's not a punishment, it's a safety thing. The lives of hundreds of people on my plane being at risk because my stupid eyes can't see what colour warning ligthts are are more important than my right or privilege to fly a giant aircraft. The same goes for operating any piece of super dangerous heavy equipment. People operating cranes at a container port will get fired if they show up drunk or on drugs or constantly gently caress up because they don't take their job seriously. Driving needs to be treated as very serious heavy equipment operation that only sober, attentive, skilled people can do. We treat driving far too casually and take the "right" to drive absolutely for granted. Of course stricter laws and a cultural attitude that treats driving more seriously won't help if we still design our society to be almost totally car-dependent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Good ol' relatable Tom. https://twitter.com/InklessPW/status/689150116767371264
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dogs-shot-manitoba-first-nations-1.3408167?__vfz=tc%3D14W28bPhRA_ My local animal shelter regularly goes up to the native community north of here and help them with things like spaying/neutering, help with vet services, and they take any that people can't care for and choose to surrender and adopt them out. I agree that preventative measures need to happen. Maybe a mobile vet van or something, a way to send a vet from community to community to take care of animals that need help...
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The canlii for this one is pretty good, https://www.canlii.org/en/on/oncj/doc/2015/2015oncj403/2015oncj403.html?searchUrlHash=AAAAAQAJZWRnZWNvbWJlAAAAAAE&resultIndex=2 I don't want to speculate that an officer of the law was purposely trying to game the system in their favour. Helsing posted:I don't really have a strong position one way or the other on revoking licenses or making it harder to drive but you repeatedly saying "being a drivers license holder isn't a right" is totally unconvincing. The solution to the rural dui problem is simple, you apply the same rules and say they can't drive. Either they get a driver and continue their meager existence in nowhere canada, or they can move to the city and take the bus to work like everyone else. You simply can't say because someone wants to live in a special area whereby they basically need a car to get around they should be given carte blanche for special treatment.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
quote:
O'Leary, the saviour of conservative values
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
My friend used to do horse stuff up near a reserve, which was also around a lot of farms and suburban "hobby farm" sort of deals. Post-soviet style roving packs of dangerous dogs were a thing. They'd attack people and livestock and generally cause a lot of trouble. The local animal control though didn't have any authority on the reserve land, which is where all the dogs were coming from. They'd have to catch the dogs off the reserve and the reserve its self was extremely uncooperative if not downright hostile towards animal control or the people getting attacked. It was a really bad situation that fueled a lot of anger towards the reserve, and probably still is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
jm20 posted:O'Leary, the saviour of conservative values Reminder that Conservative voters are not the same people as the Conservative membership, and only the membership votes. Just ask Ken Dryden, who was consistently topping "Liberal voters" polls in 2006 but ended up with 5% of the delegates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
jm20 posted:The solution to the rural dui problem is simple, you apply the same rules and say they can't drive. Either they get a driver and continue their meager existence in nowhere canada, or they can move to the city and take the bus to work like everyone else. You simply can't say because someone wants to live in a special area whereby they basically need a car to get around they should be given carte blanche for special treatment. Well ok, keep grinding that ax I guess. Your obsessive focus on punishment -- at least in the context of this particular discussion -- rather than addressing the underlying conditions that contribute to this problem makes me way less inclined to listen to what you say, but I'm getting the impression you don't care about that so more power to ya. Baronjutter posted:Of course stricter laws and a cultural attitude that treats driving more seriously won't help if we still design our society to be almost totally car-dependent. Pretty much. As I said above it's a perfectly reasonable position to say that it should be easier to revoke licenses, but like most other criminal justice issues in society the problem here goes beyond individual behaviour or morality. Harsher punishments, regardless of whether or not they are fair, are unlikely to address the problem given that most drunk drivers are obviously already willing to take on a lot of risk by driving drunk to begin with. I guess you might take a few drunk drivers permanently off the streets but generally speaking this kind of approach doesn't have a great track record, at least not when it comes to guns or drugs or prostitution. Without changing the larger context in which these crimes are occurring it can be hard to actually get a handle on the underlying problem, and unless you're envisioning some kind of vast police state it's highly unlikely you'll actually remove the majority of drunk drivers from the roads, even with a three strikes law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 19:50
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Well ok, keep grinding that ax I guess. Your obsessive focus on punishment -- at least in the context of this particular discussion -- rather than addressing the underlying conditions that contribute to this problem makes me way less inclined to listen to what you say, but I'm getting the impression you don't care about that so more power to ya. I appreciate your kind words, however rural people do have options to get around. You'd be surprised to know there are services such as taxi's and co-op/non-profits that operate a rural shuttle service. For example, http://www.bancroftcommunitytransit.com/ I stand by my statements about revoking driver licenses as a responsible means to protect the public. If you don't drink and drive, you can't lose your license and in some cases, livelihood.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
DariusLikewise posted:http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/dogs-shot-manitoba-first-nations-1.3408167?__vfz=tc%3D14W28bPhRA_ White people still think loving dogs are more important than humans, no surprises there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
jm20 posted:The solution to the rural dui problem is simple, you apply the same rules and say they can't drive. Either they get a driver and continue their meager existence in nowhere canada, or they can move to the city and take the bus to work like everyone else. You simply can't say because someone wants to live in a special area whereby they basically need a car to get around they should be given carte blanche for special treatment. Who's paying for them to relocate if they can't afford it themselves -- transportation, first and last months rent, etc? Do they go into social housing or do we just force them into homelessness if they can't find a place? Do they go on unemployment while they transition careers? Do they get a say in where they move? Do we move them to a city with a fully functioning public transit system like Toronto, or do we move them to the closest city with at least one bus? What if they have kids in school, do we just uproot them? What if they have a spouse -- do they give up their job as well? What if they have ailing parents or relatives? Nevermind that, what about the fact that their entire family and social network is likely in that "special area" where they "want" to live? Is 'Yes' to any of that more likely to exacerbate their alcoholism than not, and if yes, is that really what we want? Nevermind that. It's simple.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
I took the shorter road and asked myself: "After seeing what an unapologetic fuckhat she was about the whole situation right up until sentencing, would you volunteer to drive Christy Natsis to the grocery store?" No. No I would not.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"Simple" Who's paying for them to relocate if they can't afford it themselves -- transportation, first and last months rent, etc? They can. Do they go on unemployment while they transition careers? They would need to satisfy the EI requirements to qualify for EI. Do they get a say in where they move? Somewhere they're no longer dependent upon driving to exist, I'm sure there are such places. Do we move them to a city with a fully functioning public transit system like Toronto, or do we move them to the closest city with at least one bus? Their choice of locale provided they don't drive. What if they have kids in school, do we just uproot them? What if they have a spouse -- do they give up their job as well?  consequences, perhaps their spouse can drive them around.What if they have ailing parents or relatives? Nevermind that, what about the fact that their entire family and social network is likely in that "special area" where they "want" to live? If they have such a good social network I'm sure someone will be willing to chauffeur them around town to make it work. Is 'Yes' to any of that more likely to exacerbate their alcoholism than not, and if yes, is that really what we want? We want problem drivers to no longer have the driver part. They can continue to be problem alcoholics without the driving portion and I am fine with that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:24
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Maybe we should implement a mandatory change via the MoT to have a 3 strike system whereby you become banned from driving for life for DUI irrespective of your 'life circumstances'. I think MADD even has some sort of document about this too. http://www.madd.ca/media/docs/MADD_Canada_Sentencing_Framework_FINAL.pdf The MADD sentencing guidelines are a little steep but I think we already have a 3 strike system in Ontario http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/ignition-interlock-program.shtml posted:If you have been convicted of an impaired or drinking and driving-related offence under the Criminal Code, you will be eligible to have your driver's licence reinstated after you serve all the provincial sanctions, including serving a licence suspension, paying the reinstatement fee or administrative monetary penalty and completing the Back on Track program.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The MADD sentencing guidelines are a little steep but I think we already have a 3 strike system in Ontario Stop ruining my fun It also has some blow warn guidelines, anyways cats out of the bag peace.* convicted of an impaired or drinking and driving-related offence under the Criminal Code of Canada * suspended for registering a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.05 to 0.08 three or more times during a 5-year period
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:The MADD sentencing guidelines are a little steep There's a fuckin' shocker. The funniest part was the idea that we should sentence people more harshly for exercising their right to plead not guilty and force the state to prove the elements of the offense in court. If someone's got a disease that makes them likely to kill people, whether it's from getting into a car and running over them or getting into a bus and eating them, then we remove that person's ability to hurt us until we fix their disease, and then we let the person go again. Alcoholism or not, becoming drunk by your own hand doesn't absolve you of mens rea so if your alcoholism kills somebody then you can get your treatment in jail.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:39
|
|
|
jm20 posted:I appreciate your kind words, however rural people do have options to get around. You'd be surprised to know there are services such as taxi's and co-op/non-profits that operate a rural shuttle service. Hi jm20 it's great to see you're still an idiot. You probably have never lived in a rural area your entire life so you're unlikely to be aware that rural taxis aren't generally available everywhere - the region I lived in didn't have access to one that would be less than $60 a trip, at the very very very least. Going to a party and someone forces you to get drunk (as happened to a friend of mine growing up)? Well congrats your drunk an hour and a half drive from home and now no one wants to drive you there. I hope you like taking township roads - gravel roads since you probably don't know what that is - and I hope you "drive safe." How about the squatter that lived on my family's land for about 15 years? He grew up in a hosed up home, did a variety of drugs, and ended up going to jail so often he got the nickname "Clink." Taking away his license and registration meant he couldn't find work in the only field he had any knowledge of - oil field if I remember correctly - so he got by doing work on horses like clipping nails and other pretty simple poo poo. He drove until the day he died pretty much (of liver disease I believe). I get that you think this is a clear cut and easy problem to solve, but sadly your tendency to have very hard views about something you know very little about continues.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 23:56 |
|
|
Conservative Interim Leader Rona Ambrose is concerned that the "very new and untested" Liberal government is ill-prepared to deal with the economy and she wants to meet with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to offer her help. "I'm asking [Trudeau] to meet, because I want to offer him my support to work with the government … to discuss what is the rapidly deteriorating economic situation in Canada," Ambrose said during a luncheon speech at the Canadian Club in Toronto on Monday. Ambrose conceded that her party has significant policy differences with the Liberals, but said she is willing to present a united front on some issues to save what she described as an economy hurdling towards a recession and a Canadian dollar that is in a "tailspin." Ambrose did not elaborate on what economic policy proposals her party would be willing to support. "Now, I said that we will support the government when appropriate, and we will, because we all want good government ... but I have to tell you, in the first few weeks the Liberals have made it really difficult for us, and we're already seeing some troubling signs. "The policies they espouse are clearly bad for the economic prosperity of our country," Ambrose said, pointing to Liberal promises to reform employment insurance, proposals to raise CPP contribution rates and efforts to settle on a national price on carbon emissions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 18, 2016 20:43
|
|