|
Because now they can say they MAID it big instead of PADding their resumes.
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 06:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
The "did anyone order MAID service?" jokes are already old
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
MAID in Canada
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
So they don't have to rename it when they open it up to naturopaths and chiropractors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:07
|
|
|
Hey there's a long tradition of natural cures for life, such as hemlock.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:25
|
|
|
Christ, the one time the Senate tries to do something useful and good, and the House of Commons basically shakes its head and goes "nuh uh" like a petulant child. The Liberals have been awfully poo poo lately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 16:07
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Christ, the one time the Senate tries to do something useful and good, and the House of Commons basically shakes its head and goes "nuh uh" like a petulant child. Funny how this is the exact opposite of what a lot of people said would happen.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 16:15
|
|
|
The Senate has no business attempting to overrule the elected House 
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
The House has no business passing legislation that experts say will not pass Supreme Court scrutiny.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Baiting the courts because you're too much of pussy to explain the changes to your base is classic politics.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
PT6A posted:
Lately?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
If only we could have predicted Liberal badness somehow.quote:Echoing Premier Kathleen Wynne, who advocates for marijuana sales to be restricted to provincially owned LCBO stores, Sousa said he wanted “to send out the signal” that the era of storefront weed dispensaries is soon coming to an end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Thanks for saving us from an a undoubtedly hard-right NDP government guys. You did it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:The Senate has no business attempting to overrule the elected House Franks' has a reasonable point that they are doing their job, and it is important, but since they aren't elected I don't want them too. I would rather them be elected, and THEN do their job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
I would rather they not be elected, and do their job, because then they could force the Commons' hand into doing something politically risky but necessary, like removing the "reasonably foreseeable death" clause from the assisted dying law.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Senators need to be more like mps/mlas?? No thanks Give them term limits or something, don't elect them, then it's all the problems we have with parliamentarians and campaign monied interests, only twice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
How long until the first Supreme Court challenge over a patient who merely has a crippling, rather than terminal illness
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
Eej posted:How long until the first Supreme Court challenge over a patient who merely has a crippling, rather than terminal illness Didn't we just have one? It's ridiculous that they forced this version of the law through the House of Commons while it would not have been applicable to the person who brought their case to the Supreme Court. I still haven't figured out why the Liberals are doing this -- who is so against people who feel they have no quality of life (but aren't necessarily close to death) having access to assisted dying? What constituency are they courting with their idiotic stance?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:00
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Didn't we just have one? It's ridiculous that they forced this version of the law through the House of Commons while it would not have been applicable to the person who brought their case to the Supreme Court. I still haven't figured out why the Liberals are doing this -- who is so against people who feel they have no quality of life (but aren't necessarily close to death) having access to assisted dying? What constituency are they courting with their idiotic stance? Yup. IANAL but: quote:The appeal should be allowed. Section 241 (b) and s. 14 of the Criminal Code unjustifiably infringe s. 7 of the Charter and are of no force or effect to the extent that they prohibit physician-assisted death for a competent adult person who (1) clearly consents to the termination of life and (2) has a grievous and irremediable medical condition (including an illness, disease or disability) that causes enduring suffering that is intolerable to the individual in the circumstances of his or her condition. Definitely does not match up with "reasonably foreseable death"
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:06
|
|
|
Can we euthanize that paraplegic Tory shithead mp To set an example
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
I know that this discussion is from the last page, but here's our local transport/infrastructure budget fiasco: Halifax harbour bridge renewal/the big lift tldr: Over budget by 2 million, or less than 1% at this time. The fuckers!
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
Death is certain. All deaths are reasonably foreseeable. I can't find a part of the text that says that the death needs to be caused by the disease. Relevant text: quote:214.2 I find (2)(b) to be the most objectionable part. You have to wait for the disease to be in an advanced state? So Alzheimer patients have to endure the suffering until it becomes "advanced" before they can die. Also, how long does the consent for (1)(e) stay valid? If I am diagnosed with Alzheimer's and sign on "Yup, kill me ASAP", does that consent last until I'm delirious and say "No, don't kill me!"?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
.
Legit Businessman fucked around with this message at 19:41 on Sep 9, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:45
|
|
|
As far as I can tell, they are concerned that people with severe PTSD, or spinal cord injury, or whatever could opt to die if they felt their suffering was intolerable, because such people are uniquely "vulnerable" for some unstated reason and we can't treat them as we would any other adult. I mean, if you have such bad PTSD that you honestly think dying would be a preferable alternative after exhausting other possibilities for treatment, who is the government to say you MUST continue to live? Likewise, although many people with physical disabilities live fulfilling lives, if you honestly would prefer to die and you make the choice to do so rationally, why should the government tell you you can't? At most, we'd need a waiting period after something like that, to make sure you actually want to go through with it after sober consideration. It's not like the alternative is some sort of walk-in clinic where they take your name and next-of-kin and assist your death in under 10 minutes (or it's free!) or something. PT6A fucked around with this message at 22:50 on Jun 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
PT6A posted:As far as I can tell, they are concerned that people with severe PTSD, or spinal cord injury, or whatever could opt to die if they felt their suffering was intolerable, because such people are uniquely "vulnerable" for some unstated reason and we can't treat them as we would any other adult. We're basically one step away from Futurama suicide booths.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:We're basically one step away from Futurama suicide booths. The solution is obvious. We must construct some sort of Near Death Star to house our tormented souls until they qualify.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
quote:In January, he noted that it is “very difficult” for a youth to buy booze in Ontario. Was Bill Blair grown in a jar and released directly into society at middle age or something?
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 23:42
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:Was Bill Blair grown in a jar and released directly into society at middle age or something? When I was in high school it was absolutely easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. Not saying that getting alcohol was difficult, but getting weed was dead easy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I think people found it a lot easier to keep some baggies in their backpack than a bunch of 40s.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 00:00
|
|
|
Buying booze was difficult enough that you couldn't count on having enough every weekend. It was more like coke or mushrooms. You almost certainly would have some but every so often your weekend plans would be disrupted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 00:36
|
|
|
stop sending our CF to war and they stop getting PTSD
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 00:51
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:When I was in high school it was absolutely easier to buy marijuana than alcohol. I had a pretty hard time finding alcohol to drink regularly but weed was literally as easy as going to the smoking pit and shouting "who has weed?" namaste faggots posted:stop sending our CF to war and they stop getting PTSD this will happen even without sending people to war fyi
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Weed was easy to find because of weedtrepeneurs. These business minded people would sell their half ounce to betas for a bit of profit to smoke themselves for free. High school drug dealers are some the most successful people, look at Doug Ford.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:19
|
|
|
Alcohol is easy to find in senior high because there's people old enough to buy it, as are cigarettes. Junior high is where weed was way, way easier to find than booze or smokes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Alcohol is easy to find in senior high because there's people old enough to buy it, as are cigarettes. Junior high is where weed was way, way easier to find than booze or smokes. Not anymore in Ontario.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
namaste faggots posted:stop sending our CF to war and they stop getting PTSD They'd have to stop the on-base sexual assaults too, I think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:Not anymore in Ontario. Yes and no. There aren't as many 19 year olds as 18 year olds, but they're still there (conversely, there are very few 18-year-olds in jr. high). Also, by the time you're in high school, chances are good you have a part-time job where you work with people old enough to buy those things, and with poor enough judgement to not give a gently caress. Still, weed is waaay easier to get than booze and smokes in either case.
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:32 |
|
|
Subjunctive posted:They'd have to stop the on-base sexual assaults too, I think. That's therapy for our good old boys
|
|
#
?
Jun 19, 2016 02:40
|
|