CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »

PittTheElder: Feb 13, 2012; Yes, it's like a lava lamp.

No they're the Free Enterprise party. I'm sure the market will figure this one out somehow.

# ? Apr 22, 2019 23:40

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 01:37

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

when is doug ford going to give himself a pay cut

# ? Apr 22, 2019 23:59

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

The way Doug treated Renata should be exactly how you expect him to run the province. Thinking otherwise is misguided and foolish.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 00:32

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

PT6A posted:

What I don't get is, like, aren't the UCP all about tough-on-crime? How does cutting prosecutorial resources make any sense to them?

Get a load of the guy expecting ideological coherence in legislation.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 01:41

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Here's an article relevant to discussions we've had in this thread in the past:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/how-inequality-statistics-can-mislead-you

quote:

HOW INEQUALITY STATISTICS CAN MISLEAD YOU
It doesn�t matter if my income grows 500% if it started out at four cents�
by NATHAN J. ROBINSON

I am sure you have heard plenty of people make the argument that global capitalism �lifts all boats.� Yes, as productivity increases, the rich get much richer, but the poor get richer too. Fewer people nowadays are living on $1 a day than ever before. An American poor person today lives better in many ways than a rich person in 1850. If people are unhappy, it�s because they irrationally fail to appreciate that their lives are Actually Good.

In its most extreme, Pinker-esque version, the argument can seem absurd on its face: Telling people less well-off than you that they should be more happy is not actually going to make them happy and does nothing except help you rationalize your failure to help them. But the whole �everyone is getting richer, actually� thing is said by both critics of inequality and defenders of it.

Have a look at this chart:

Dylan Matthews of Vox has cited this chart in critiquing Oxfam�s portrayal of the world as divided between the extremely wealthy (who own nearly everything) and the extremely poor (who own nearly nothing). Matthews is not a defender of unchecked free market capitalism, but he does think this chart shows that everyone is getting meaningfully better off. He writes:

The rich really are getting preposterously rich. And there�s a real argument to be made � the political argument that Oxfam�s statistic is meant to make � that making taxes more progressive and directing the funds to, say, cash payments to poor households would lead to faster poverty reduction than has occurred under the current system. One analysis suggests that up to 50 percent of global extreme poverty could be ended if developing countries adopted higher top tax rates. But the rich getting richer doesn�t preclude the poor getting richer too, and while the middle classes in the US and Europe have seen less income growth than either the poorest people in developing countries or the richest people on earth, the world�s progress against extreme poverty is real and notable. It�s also, I�d argued, unhelpfully obscured by stats like Oxfam�s.

This chart is used a lot in inequality debates. It is referred to as the �elephant graph,� and credited to economist Branko Milanovic. It has been called the �hottest chart in economics.� Critics of inequality cite it to show that while the people at the very bottom and the very top are doing better and better, the people in the middle have seen much less income growth over time. But defenders of capitalism also use the chart, pointing out correctly that it shows everyone�s incomes growing. PBS�s Paul Solmon asked Milanovic about the chart, saying:

I�ve seen the elephant chart used in a classroom in a way that was suggesting, perhaps subliminally: �Hey, inequality isn�t really so bad because look how many people are benefiting from economic growth around the world. Global inequality is actually decreasing.�

Milanovic acknowledged in response: �You know, there is some truth to that� [If] you actually look at this chart, you basically don�t see any group of people who have a decline in income.� So capitalism is lifting all boats!

But do you notice something a little odd about the chart? Look at what it measures: percentage of income growth across people at different percentiles in the income distribution. Why would we care about percentage of growth, though? Surely what matters is not how much more money you have as a percent of what you used to have, but how much money you have, period. For example: Say the people at the bottom started off earning $0.05 a day, and the people at the top were earning $10,000 a day. If the people at the bottom saw income growth of 100 percent, they�d still only be earning 10 cents a day! Whereas if people at the top saw 50 percent growth, they�d be earning $5,000 more a day.

So this chart is virtually meaningless on its own in telling us anything useful about the real world. If the line were very high on the left side of the X-axis (i.e., people at the bottom had seen huge percentages of growth) and very low on the right side of the X-axis (i.e., people at the top had seen only very small percentages of growth), the chart would be used to say: Ah, you see, the poor are benefitting from capitalism even more than the rich are! Their incomes have gone up by 1000 percent! But if that�s the difference between $110, whereas for rich people it�s an addition of hundreds of thousands more dollars, then actually the rich are benefitting way, way more.

Percentages are misleading here, because X percent of a small number is a much lower amount than X percent of a large number. We can say �Ah, the incomes of the rich and the poor are growing at the same rate.� But for a poor person, the addition may be the cost of a bag of chips, whereas for the rich person it is the cost of a Mazerati. By treating these percentages as comparable, we fail to see just how minuscule the �trickle� that is �trickling down� to the poor actually is. Yet people insist on finding meaning in the �percentage of income growth� rather than the raw amount. The Brookings Institution has a paper critiquing the elephant chart and arguing that the percentages are far more even than they look. They conclude from this that �the data do not support the idea that the poorest people are being left behind, nor that the richest are taking all the income gains.� But that�s nonsense: Even if the elephant graph were completely flat, the rich would be seeing increases in the thousands or tens of thousands of dollars while the poor would be seeing increases in the dozens of dollars.

Jeremy Lent, in explaining why Steven Pinker is largely full of poo poo, has pointed out that when you actually look at dollar numbers, rather than percentages, you can see that globally, poor people are not actually doing much better at all compared to how much better rich people are doing:

This graph shows the �percentage growth� on the blue line and the dollar-amount growth on the green line. As you can see, poor people did not actually receive many more dollars in this time, when compared with the number of additional dollars rich people received. And in fact, this chart doesn�t even begin to show you the scale of the problem. If you looked at the very tippy top of the distribution, some people would be earning millions more dollars. Lent points out that �at the current rate, it would take over 250 years for the income of the poorest 10% to merely reach the global average income of $11/day,� meanwhile the incomes of the people at the top would have outstripped them by multiple hundreds of times.

Any honest presentation of the income distribution will show that we live in a world where most people receive nearly nothing and a small number of people receive hundreds or thousands of times more. Have a look at this chart showing global income distribution in 2003 and 2013:

This is a much more realistic representation of the nature of the global economy: Most people get nearly tiny amounts, some people get gigantic amounts. This graph should really go up to the millions and hundreds of millions of dollars, which is where the line actually ends. That would reveal just how pitifully small the incomes of the majority of Earth�s population are next to the incomes of the super-rich.

Make sure to bear this in mind next time you see someone pointing out that �global extreme poverty is in decline.� What that means is that people are crossing from an extremely small amount of money to a slightly larger but still comparatively minuscule amount of money. Their incomes are still essentially nonexistent when we put them next to the incomes of the people at the top. The gap is just unfathomably wide. Those who talk about how capitalism is reducing poverty pat themselves on the back because hundreds of millions of people have gone from having $1.50 a day to $4 a day, from being malnourished to being able to afford a bowl of soup. �We�ve significantly reduced the number of famines!� they�ll say. The question, however, is not �Did the lives of the poor get better?� but �How much better would the lives of the poor be if we did not live in a world where a tiny number of people own nearly everything?� If you just look at whether things are �better� to determine whether they are �good,� then the Gilded Age was good because it was better than the Middle Ages.

There are problems with using �income� statistics in the first place. There is a strong argument that what we should really look at is wealth: the pile of money you�re sitting on, not just the amount of new money you get every year. How did the wealth of the poor grow over time compared to the wealth of the rich? How many actual assets do they have beyond mere subsistence? Here, you�ll find that 63 percent of the world population has under $10,000 in total wealth, and collectively own only 1.9 percent of the world�s wealth.

It�s very easy to obscure the extremes. Beware of statistics and charts that manipulate information in ways that disguise just how large the absolute gap between rich and poor is. Look, for instance, at this chart, from the otherwise-useful Credit Suisse global wealth report:

This chart disguises just how much wealth is contained in North America versus other regions. Look at the scale on the lefthand side. We go from 100 at the bottom to 1,000, then 10,000, then 100,000. On the chart, the gap between each interval is the same distance. But, of course, the difference between 100 and 1,000 is not the same as the difference between 1,000 and 10,000, or 10,000 and 100,000. The chart�s makers have used a logarithmic scale, where each interval is a multiple of the last (in this case, 10x). If we graphed this with absolute dollar amounts, the graph would look horrifying: We�d see that Africans have almost no wealth on average compared to North Americans, who have about 100x as much.

We live in an extremely unequal world. But we also live in a world where it�s easy to bury the truth by manipulating the scale on your charts or failing to use the appropriate measurements. Do not believe the defenders of capitalism when they talk about how �rising tides are lifting all boats.� The question is: How much are they lifting your boat, versus how much are they lifting my boat? �Oh, well, your boat and my boat are both being lifted by 20 percent�� None of that bullshit, thank you very much. Be honest: Capitalism is delivering windfalls to the rich and crumbs to the poor. Yes, �extreme� poverty is declining, thank God. It should be! But most people still have nearly nothing, and some people have everything they could ever dream of 1000 times over.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 06:15

Juul-Whip: Mar 10, 2008

PT6A posted:

What I don't get is, like, aren't the UCP all about tough-on-crime? How does cutting prosecutorial resources make any sense to them?

the cruelty is the point

# ? Apr 23, 2019 07:00

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

plus the more "criminals" get away with crimes because underfunded crown attorneys can't make the case within the Jordan time limit, the more public support there will be for conservatives' ultimate preferred justice policy, summary executions in the public square

# ? Apr 23, 2019 07:04

flakeloaf: Feb 26, 2003; Still better than android clock

vyelkin posted:

plus the more "criminals" get away with crimes because underfunded crown attorneys can't make the case within the Jordan time limit, the more public support there will be for conservatives' ultimate preferred justice policy, summary executions in the public square

Lynching

The word you're looking for is lynching

# ? Apr 23, 2019 13:11

ZeeBoi: Jan 17, 2001

https://twitter.com/LaurenPelley/status/1120667176032190465

folks

# ? Apr 23, 2019 13:56

EvidenceBasedQuack: Aug 15, 2015; A rock has no detectable opinion about gravity

vyelkin posted:

Here's an article relevant to discussions we've had in this thread in the past:

https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/04/how-inequality-statistics-can-mislead-you

Thanks! I've had this argument very recently and the author does a great job at simplifying how the global poverty metrics aren't saying what pundits think they say.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 15:32

Nine of Eight: Apr 28, 2011; LICK IT OFF, AND PUT IT BACK IN; Dinosaur Gum

Personne ne m�emp�chera de (re)publier mes sales m�m�s de seconde main.

Mus�e des Beaux Memes
�EXPOSITION 001 | �uvre 03
� M�me ironiquement,,,,,,,, ses vraies �
Volont� de McPouvoirr sur n�ant�

In the face of evidence, the far right is undeterred and digs further into lunacy:

Non parody news: Far right journalist completely batshit

�For the adh�rents of a certain left obsessed by anti racism, a dead Christian is one less oppressor. Oh they won�t say it like that, they aren�t crazy! But it�s what they think.
For them, in the equilibrium of moral indignation, a murdered catholic weighs less than a murdered Muslim� -Richard Martineau

No La�cit� exceptions for Montreal, announces Minister Jolin-Barette: �It�s � law aimed at immigrants, and where are the immigrants?�

A brief moment of levity from Tartinmediatizer des m�m�s sur le Plateau Mont Royal.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 17:32

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

https://twitter.com/Bill_Morneau/status/1120708477448413184
this is kinda ugly

# ? Apr 23, 2019 17:38

Jan: Feb 27, 2008; The disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy.

Nine of Eight posted:

Non parody news: Far right journalist completely batshit

�For the adh�rents of a certain left obsessed by anti racism, a dead Christian is one less oppressor. Oh they won�t say it like that, they aren�t crazy! But it�s what they think.
For them, in the equilibrium of moral indignation, a murdered catholic weighs less than a murdered Muslim� -Richard Martineau

Si on inclut Richard Martineau parmi lesdits chr�tiens, il n'a pas tort.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:13

Arivia: Mar 17, 2011

Pinterest Mom posted:

https://twitter.com/Bill_Morneau/status/1120708477448413184
this is kinda ugly

well it sure does look gay as gently caress

I can see that guy trying to pick me up at a party with transmisogynistic come-ons :smith:

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:19

SilverMike: Sep 17, 2007; TBD

Pinterest Mom posted:

https://twitter.com/Bill_Morneau/status/1120708477448413184
this is kinda ugly

gently caress, that looks almost as awful as what it's trying to lie about.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:27

The Butcher: Apr 20, 2005; Well, at least we tried.; Nap Ghost

I'm the gay mind control waves. :tinfoil:

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:30

Pixelante: Mar 16, 2006; You people will by God act like a team, or at least like people who know each other, or I'll incinerate the bunch of you here and now.

I would be interested in thoughts on the careworker raise in BC. People in my field are really upset about it. I had a chance to ask the Minister of Social Development about it but he dodged hard and I didn't get another shot.

Union only raise for community care workers.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:33

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

FB posted:

Ford: My friends, gently caress midwives, your kids can be born in a hospital, because we have a perfectly good health care system, from which I have cut 1 billion dollars. They'll be fine, you'll have you to take care of them at home since you can no longer afford daycare, because I cut $23 million earmarked for subsidies.

It's ok though, soon they will be in school, albeit overcrowded and with not enough teachers to go around, because I just cut another billion dollars of funding from education. Oh, and make sure you have the internet because I also cut half of the budget for libraries.

Not to worry! Your kids will go to college...unless you're poor, because I cut the budget for subsidies for low income families. All good though, they can get a loan, but be sure they're working two jobs while going to school because we are going to want that money back as soon as they graduate."

Everyone: Well...ok, but the deficit will at least be lower, right?

Ford: No...but try this dollar beer, it's loving refreshing!

Everyone: Uh...

Ford: Hey, relax, I was a drug dealer. I got this.

You really need to put it into perspective and swirl that cup around a bit.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 18:59

A Typical Goon: Feb 25, 2011

Pixelante posted:

I would be interested in thoughts on the careworker raise in BC. People in my field are really upset about it. I had a chance to ask the Minister of Social Development about it but he dodged hard and I didn't get another shot.

Union only raise for community care workers.

join the union scab

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:11

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Pixelante posted:

I would be interested in thoughts on the careworker raise in BC. People in my field are really upset about it. I had a chance to ask the Minister of Social Development about it but he dodged hard and I didn't get another shot.

Union only raise for community care workers.

A Typical Goon posted:

join the union scab

There is no discourse emote large enough to post

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:16

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Pixelante posted:

I would be interested in thoughts on the careworker raise in BC. People in my field are really upset about it. I had a chance to ask the Minister of Social Development about it but he dodged hard and I didn't get another shot.

Union only raise for community care workers.

quote:

In a letter to Finance Minister Carole James, Vancouver lawyer Delayne Sartison called the government�s action �unfair and damaging� to services and a violation of the Labour Relations Code.

�Non-union workers will have no choice but to either (a) unionize their current employer, or (b) quit their jobs and find jobs doing the same work with union employers or within the unionized aspects of hybrid employers in order to receive the low wage redress increases that the government has publicly stated are imported for the sector,� Sartison wrote.

I'm not seeing the problem?

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:19

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

Hmmm it's almost like being in a union gives workers more bargaining power and results in better working conditions :thunk:

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:27

McGavin: Sep 18, 2012

Pixelante posted:

I would be interested in thoughts on the careworker raise in BC. People in my field are really upset about it. I had a chance to ask the Minister of Social Development about it but he dodged hard and I didn't get another shot.

Union only raise for community care workers.

You know you're getting screwed when the BC CEO network is going to bat for you.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:28

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

vyelkin posted:

Hmmm it's almost like being in a union gives workers more bargaining power and results in better working conditions

Unrepresented workers want the same benefits representation provides, without being represented or contributing to said representation in any form or fashion :thunk:

But it's not fair :qq:

e2: actual content instead of schadenfreude.

OECTA/OSSTF/ETFO going work to rule in the fall 100%, if you have kids in activities they are cancelled :george:

Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Apr 23, 2019

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:32

Pixelante: Mar 16, 2006; You people will by God act like a team, or at least like people who know each other, or I'll incinerate the bunch of you here and now.

Helsing posted:

I'm not seeing the problem?

It's not a problem for the workers, because yeah, they can definitely find unionised jobs. Carework is a hard job for what it pays, and there's always high turnover. There's more demand for workers than there are workers to go around. They all deserve more money for what they do.

The problem is the folks who need the workers. If you are dependent on CLBC, the hours of respite you're offered might not be enough. Or maybe you don't like the contracted agencies in your area. Or maybe the kind of support you want isn't something on the menu. Those folks can take their share of resources as Individualized Funding. It's a way to make the money stretch further, since you're effectively taking all the overhead onto yourself, instead of paying agency rates.

There are also a lot of people who prefer the microboard approach, which is a very interesting and effective model for service delivery.

In a nutshell, all of those people are probably going to lose their staff and be herded into agencies. For me, it means we might lose the excellent careworker my brother has had for years, since I don't think her agency is unionized.

The thing I'm not sure about is the likelihood of advocacy changing anything, or why they thought this was a great idea in the first place.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 19:36

Helsing: Aug 23, 2003; DON'T POST IN THE ELECTION THREAD UNLESS YOU JOE BIDEN

Pixelante posted:

It's not a problem for the workers, because yeah, they can definitely find unionised jobs. Carework is a hard job for what it pays, and there's always high turnover. There's more demand for workers than there are workers to go around. They all deserve more money for what they do.

The problem is the folks who need the workers...

Sounds like your problem is with the lack of government support and the need for more funding. Why are you demanding a workforce that is already underpaid, overworked and precarious should shoulder the burden?

# ? Apr 23, 2019 20:28

Kraftwerk: Aug 13, 2011; i do not have 10,000 bircoins, please stop asking

Hi guys - it�s semi related but I want to talk about some things Helsing said earlier.

Recently some friends have approached me and told me that I�m a great writer and I�m good at shutting down right wingers and advocating for progressive causes on my social media. I told them that structures within existing parties are designed to prevent any true progressives from gaining any kind of momentum.

To that end I remembered what helsing said about how what we absolutely need right now isn�t a top down change by magically waiting for some left wing leader to inspire our politics. Instead we need to build a progressive movement from the ground up at the grassroots that can apply pressure on the political system.

So instead of tilting at the windmills on Facebook- I thought I�d ask you guys to help me brainstorm some ideas on how we can build a homegrown progressive movement here in Canada.

I�m talking about networks similar to how we have momentum in the uk or the Justice Democrat�s, DSA and our revolution in the US. How does one start building a movement and winning over followers for this idea?
Would it require us to have a progressive network similar to TYT in the USA?

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:11

tagesschau: Sep 1, 2006; Guten Abend, meine Damen und Herren.

Risky Bisquick posted:

Unrepresented workers want the same benefits representation provides, without being represented or contributing to said representation in any form or fashion

Object lesson in how this plays out coming soon, thanks to Hugh Janus v. AFSCME.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:23

Arabian Jesus: Feb 15, 2008; We've got the American Jesus
Bolstering national faith

We've got the American Jesus
Overwhelming millions every day

Kraftwerk posted:

I’m talking about networks similar to how we have momentum in the uk or the Justice Democrat’s, DSA and our revolution in the US. How does one start building a movement and winning over followers for this idea?
Would it require us to have a progressive network similar to TYT in the USA?

These activist networks already exist in individual areas. I believe the Courage Coalition is probably the closest thing we have to something resembling Momentum. Getting something organized on the national level is far more easier said than done but I think it would be a huge step for left politics

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:39

Pinterest Mom: Jun 9, 2009

Kraftwerk posted:

Hi guys - it�s semi related but I want to talk about some things Helsing said earlier.

Recently some friends have approached me and told me that I�m a great writer and I�m good at shutting down right wingers and advocating for progressive causes on my social media. I told them that structures within existing parties are designed to prevent any true progressives from gaining any kind of momentum.

To that end I remembered what helsing said about how what we absolutely need right now isn�t a top down change by magically waiting for some left wing leader to inspire our politics. Instead we need to build a progressive movement from the ground up at the grassroots that can apply pressure on the political system.

So instead of tilting at the windmills on Facebook- I thought I�d ask you guys to help me brainstorm some ideas on how we can build a homegrown progressive movement here in Canada.

I�m talking about networks similar to how we have momentum in the uk or the Justice Democrat�s, DSA and our revolution in the US. How does one start building a movement and winning over followers for this idea?
Would it require us to have a progressive network similar to TYT in the USA?

https://www.facebook.com/pg/couragecoalition/

Courage is aspirationally doing some work in this space.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:39

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Risky Bisquick posted:

OECTA/OSSTF/ETFO going work to rule in the fall 100%, if you have kids in activities they are cancelled

Good, that'll give the teachers more time to practice for the math panels

quote:

�This isn�t about class sizes, gentlemen,� Doug Ford told a panel of guests on the show.

�This is strictly from the union thugs, as I call them, the teachers� union, one of the most powerful unions in the entire country. There�s finally a government with a backbone that wants our kids to start learning math.�

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:56

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

Teachers' Union Thug is one hell of a name.

Also, as someone who works with OSSTF, lmao.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 21:57

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

Postess with the Mostest posted:

Good, that'll give the teachers more time to practice for the math panels

The kids are getting dumber because parents are not involved and drop their kids off in front of screens 24x7.

Parents need to stand behind front line educators because the upstream impacts of these cuts for the current gr 2-8 will be felt for years. lol if you have kids in PJ and voted to cut education funding voting for Ford.

Risky Bisquick fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Apr 23, 2019

# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:15

cowofwar: Jul 30, 2002; by Athanatos

Parents who voted for Ford were going to have idiot kids regardless. Parents who care will have successful kids regardless.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:22

Tsyni: Sep 1, 2004; I love you, boy. One pack, always.; Lipstick Apathy

I'm working on a job site in North Vancouver where I overheard some "carpenters" trying to figure out their time and a half wage on $26/h.

Math is just a luxury.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:44

RBC: Nov 23, 2007; IM STILL SPENDING MONEY FROM 1888

cowofwar posted:

Parents who voted for Ford were going to have idiot kids regardless. Parents who care will have successful kids regardless.

yeah or they put their kids in private school so they dont give a gently caress

# ? Apr 23, 2019 22:49

Furnaceface: Oct 21, 2004

RBC posted:

yeah or they put their kids in private school so they dont give a gently caress

Yep. Reminder that the Ontario education minister is a private school booster and her second in command is a home educated religious nutjob.

# ? Apr 23, 2019 23:05

Risky Bisquick: Jan 18, 2008; PLEASE LET ME WRITE YOUR VICTIM IMPACT STATEMENT SO I CAN FURTHER DEMONSTRATE THE CALAMITY THAT IS OUR JUSTICE SYSTEM.; Buglord

RBC posted:

yeah or they put their kids in private school so they dont give a gently caress

Not every conservative is upper class but okay cool take.

# ? Apr 24, 2019 00:13

Postess with the Mostest: Apr 4, 2007; Arabian nights
'neath Arabian moons
A fool off his guard
could fall and fall hard
out there on the dunes

Risky Bisquick posted:

The kids are getting dumber because parents are not involved and drop their kids off in front of screens 24x7.

The struggle is real, had to cancel netflix

# ? Apr 24, 2019 00:16

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Jun 11, 2024 01:37

HackensackBackpack: Aug 20, 2007; Who needs a house out in Hackensack? Is that all you get for your money?

The premier of Prince Edward Island just lost his seat to a guy named Bloyce.

Oh, also it looks like a PC minority unless the Greens manage to work some kind of coalition with the Liberals.

And it doesn't look like PR is going to pass on the Island either.

HackensackBackpack fucked around with this message at 01:29 on Apr 24, 2019

# ? Apr 24, 2019 01:26

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > CanPol 2019 - you won't drink whiskey, and talk politics and vote like us

«‹›185 »