|
Lexicon posted:Yes, loads of people still get off on the whole thing. I find it totally vulgar that our head-of-state is a hereditary monarch half-a-world away, but somehow this fact isn't that troubling to many Canadians. I can understand having a 'presidential' figure who's apolitical, but using the British monarch for this purpose seems completely asinine to me. Personally, in an ideal world I would want to see the monarchy abolished and replaced by an elected figure. But, there are many more problems with our political system, and Canadian society in general, that I feel are more urgent to solve. It just seems to me like the effort and time expended to eliminate a symbolic position like that would be better spent elsewhere. If it were part of a total rehashing of the system, including the Senate and FPTP, then I would be behind it 100% Question, since I haven't taken a Canadian Politics course in a while and I'm not sure where to look this up, but would it be possible to make the Senate elected without a constitutional change? I've heard some yeses and nos to this answer, but I've never heard a definitive argument for or against the idea.
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 14:30
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
PittTheElder posted:I genuinely don't understand this sentiment. The way I see it, the Québécois got a pretty good deal following the Treaty of Paris, 1763. Granted, I don't know much about Canadian history between, say 1820 and 1990, but aside from Quebec being federated into a country with a bunch of people who speak English, I don't get the whole 'disenfranchisement, alienation, humiliation' part. Particularly since after 250 years, Quebec still largely retains the most defining characteristics of New France: French and Catholicism. Maybe you should read up on the History then. French Canadians were systematically excluded from power until very recently in our history (basically during the century and a half you are ignorant of). If it hadn't been for the Quiet Revolution, Quebec would still be an underindustrialized backwater under the thumb of the church, who basically accepted disenfranchisement as a way of keeping the Quebec population quiescent. E @Raenir Salazar: There's a difference between theoretically being eligible for holding power, and actually exercising power over your own fate. Quebec was dominated by rich Anglophones for generations. Also E;F;B As I've said, I feel that there are many more problems to address in Canadian society than engaging in a political struggle with monarchists to try to get rid of a purely symbolic position (in our system). But the affection people feel for the monarchy seems weird to me. It is a symbol of domination and control as an institution. Even if Elizabeth herself doesn't seem like a bad person, the institution itself is anachronistic at best, and insultingly colonial at worst. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 20:29 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 20:24
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Quick, make her neutral ethnicity (white)! Still can't believe people cared about that. Well, I can, but it makes me really sad.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
Autumncomet posted:Wait, really, what was this? Back in 2009, The Bank of Canada focusgrouped the designs for the new bank notes that were going to be introduced in 2012. The theme of the 100$ was "innovation" and showed an Asian woman looking through a microscope. Some racists objected, saying that she wasn't representative of Canada. When the note was reintroduced, the woman had been changed, to what the Bank of Canada claims is a "neutral ethnicity". Who has blond hair. They also issued a generic apology that I'm still not clear on whether it was apologizing for the change, or the inclusion of the Asian woman int he first place. Link to covergae: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/20/asian-100-bill-carney_n_1810925.html Edit: And to be clear, what makes me sad is both that a) people somehow thought that an Asian woman wasn't representative of Canada and that b) the BoC listened to them and changed the design. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 06:06
|
|
|
THC posted:The most outrageous single event in recent memory is the Toronto G20 conference imo. But May 2013 was a pretty awful month. It depends on how you take the term "worst". If by worst, you mean the largest crisis, then no, this week doesn't stack up. If by worst you mean "I can't believe how many of our political elite are entitled shitheads" then is is pretty bad.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 1, 2013 23:13
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:When people act like one can only fight one social cause at a time I just kind of shrug and hope they get hit by a zamboni. That's not even the angle they're coming from, it's worse than that. The basic premise is that the real sexists are over in [insert country here, ususally Muslim-majority] unlike liberal Canada, where sexism is over and women are just trying to get privileges. Seriously, I've seen it work on people too. A friend of mine basically said that because we aren't as terrible as Saudi Arabia, we must be OK and the people whining about civil rights here are just demanding special treatment. He wouldn't listen to any arguments about sexism or racism in Canada. E: Well, he was more of an acquaintance in university, and a member of the CPC too.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 2, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
Lol, the Globe is left of centre. Hell, I subscribe to the Globe and Mail*, but the bias is obvious. The only way I can think of describing it is as bourgeois. It caters to very specific socioeconomic class that likes to think of itself as progressive and enlightened, but still votes for the Conservatives out of greed. * I like reading their guest editorials, and stuff by Lawrence Martin. Plus it gives me something to read in the morning. Better than the Ottawa Citizen at least 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 3, 2013 00:07
|
|
|
mr. unhsib posted:Sure but when you're an American-born anti-abortionist trying to make it as a progressive politician in Canada, it's *probably* counterproductive. Is May anti-abortion? I'll admit I haven't payed that much attention to her past prior to her Sierra Club time, but I don't recall her saying anything like this. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 16:36 on Jun 5, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 16:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Hell yeah, I love learning poo poo, specially if the person educating me really knows their poo poo. I loving hate May and the green party but she did nothing wrong in her interview and she's 100% right about shrimp, stop eating that poo poo you idiots. Wait, I can see why people would be neutral on the Greens but what have they done to make you hate them? I didn't know it was possible to hate the Greens and the Conservatives at the same time.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 21:10
|
|
|
Majuju posted:They want to stop permitting and phase out currently-producing uranium mines in Canada (which is 20% of the world's uranium production), which is responsible for 15,000 jobs in Saskatchewan alone, and they also completely oppose the export of any fissionable material including thorium. Their policy on the energy industry is literally 1.21 Energy Industry: No to Nuclear. Christ, really? I knew about the nuclear stuff, but I sort of figured, "hey they'll moderate if they ever actually come close to being a mainstream party". They're hardly the only environmental group to fear nuclear. But I've never met someone who promoted homeopathy that had any concrete grasp of environmental science or actual environmental issues. Stop depressing me goons. 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
The issue with the "secret" fund is that the money may have been used to pay off Duffy. If that's the case, then party funds were used to try to silence a parliamentary inquiry. Even assuming Wright acted on his own initiative, that still means that other people might have been aware of the withdrawal. Plus, secret money stashes are poor optics, even if everyone uses them. Doesn't matter what the reality is, it matters what the electorate perceives it as. Also, politics in Canada are the same as politics everywhere, which is to say that the most photogenic and charismatic person usually wins. I'm not saying the issues don't matter, but you all are fooling yourselves if you believe that democratic results represent a choice on issues, whether informed or uninformed. Talking about the stupidity of the average Canadian voter is, on top of being extremely elitist and conceited, missing the point; democracies have never worked the way idealists paint them as, and campaigning and charisma is how election have been and will always be won. That is the nature of democracy. If the Liberals or the NDP are able to spin this the right way, it can absolutely stick and dent the conservatives ratings, but that alone isn't enough to win an election. Link to what I'm talking about (This is actually for newer democracies, but studies have shown this in well established democracies as well: http://web.mit.edu/polisci/people/faculty/documents/Lawson%20lenz%20baker%20myers%202010.pdf
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 04:58
|
|
|
Harry Joe posted:There are exceptions to every rule. In his case, screaming economy over and over again as loud as he possibly could is what did it. Also, no offence to Dion or Ignatieff, but they both had huge optics issues which the Conservatives capitalized on. Harper seems pretty wooden often, and we joke about it a whole lot, but he's more charismatic than Ignatieff ever was. It's all relative. And until Jack Layton really started selling them, the NDP were basically ignored by most of the country. E: Plus sometimes, depending on the situation, other factors matter more. Age can either be bad or good depending on cultural and contextual factors. The point is that looks matter way more than the standard narrative of democracy would claim. Ex2: The other take away is that people rationalize why they voted for candidate A or B after the fact as having been about issues or substantive stuff. But in many cases the decision was taken, or at least heavenly biased, in one direction prior to any though being put on the issues. Even the mighty intellects of D&D are subject to this sort of thinking. It's just human. But seriously, Canadians didn't really reach a concencus on things like low taxes or the oil sands, those are just reasons given post-facto to justify choices made before. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jun 8, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 05:21
|
|
|
HookShot posted:^^ owns But it's premised on the idea that the system is dysfunctional because of the voters in it, rather than the system itself currently favouring such an outcome. The idea that at some point in history previous to this voters were voting intelligently, and that now they are not, is faulty reasoning that doesn't bear out in reality. Getting angry at the common voter is counterproductive and stupid, the system generates the results we see, and no amount of voter engagement exercises will change that. For every one person who votes strategically, there are two who never do, and this has always been the case. So advocate for systemic change, hell, advocate for the NDP or the liberals to go into a hole and die to stop dividing the left, but don't delude yourselves into believing that if only the public were up to snuff, democracy would work, because it doesn't. At least not int he way you believe it should.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
You know, the fact that the greens support homeopathy and acupuncture makes a lot of sense when I think about it. The only people I know who believe in that stuff are exactly the kind of yuppie progressive with disposable income I could see voting for the greens. Maybe it's a strategic consideration, for getting votes? 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Private industry will never do the sort of broad primary research and long-term research necessary for subsequent technological advancement. Government should be investing in the research sectors that private industry can't due to initial investment costs and longterm funding commitments, not subsidising industry research.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2013 01:00
|
|
|
In pure terms of energy used to transport people, public transit always wins. Even if we bought every poor person a car (which he wold also hate, the liar), who's going to pay for the gas? That's his big loving deliberate omission, the actual cost of the energy to move all the subsidized hunks of metal he's decided solve the transit issue. It's a really awful argument. You might as well say we should build blimps instead of air planes since they cost less, without ever calculating the fuel efficiency factors that makes blimps much worse than airplanes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2013 18:23
|
|
|
Team THEOLOGY posted:I'm not sure if you've been on the hill and through security much in a vehicle but when Pierre Pollievere did it, it was stupid as gently caress too. Gonna have to agree with TT on this. It's not a big deal, but it's loving stupid and out of touch and demonstrates that politicians are probably as a class all really egocentric. Blowing through a security checkpoint and not stopping when the RCMP asks you to are not things people need to try and defend or hand-wave away.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:I'm in this boat. As great as "we" (And "we" is always a strange and nebulous term) are, at least they don't have kings or queens. Plus it's a great way to pretend we don't have huge systemic problems with racism too. "We Canadians are multicultural, unlike those racist Americans!"; well except for how we treat aboriginal peoples and our periodic bouts of xenophobic hatred for [insert minority here]. But whatever, at least we're not the US.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 20:42
|
|
|
Ceciltron posted:In all fairness, our prime minister is perhaps a few pieces of legislation away from that point, if not already with the power to do such things. I mean our government can hand you over to be tortured and killed, so I'd venture to say that the only reason we don't have the PMO signing executive murder orders is because we don't have attack drones or operatives around the globe with the same organisation the US has. National impotence, not national unwillingness, is probably the reason for a lot of our reputation as peace-loving.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
I say this as someone who personally dislikes Justin Trudeau as a useless prettyboy millionaire coasting on his name, but this really doesn't seem all that shocking or scandalous to me. I operate on the axiom that anyone who gets far enough in politics to have household name recognition has to be at least a little narcissistic, and Trudeau has given me plenty of reasons to believe he's more than just a little. I fail to see how this will gain any traction, it's just not that big a deal, especially not compared to the Senate scandal.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
eXXon posted:Retired general Walt Natynczyk has been appointed as the new director of the Canadian Space Agency. Now that the F35s have been revealed to be useless, we'll definitively need a Star-Wars style space-based missile system to defend against all those Russians coming over the pole.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2013 18:24
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:Well, I'm glad that we can both agree that poor people should not attempt to own homes if it means over leveraging themselves. Unless you're trying to imply that they should be subsidized? Well, considering that we incentivised home-ownership through the tax system as a way of buttressing economic growth in the recession (First-Time Home Buyers' Tax Credit), it's really not as simple as talking about personal responsibility, especially considering that high housing prices directly effect the price of rentals. And actually you should be concerned that we are heading for a real-estate bubble. Amazingly, macroeconomic effects have the potential to ruin you personally, or many other people, all of who were as financially responsible as you were! quaint bucket posted:As for never had to drive to work, that's not true. I used to work 3 jobs while going to school fulltime and this needed a vehicle in a bad way. I paid $600~ for a beater just to get to and forth covering great distance so I could earn money. I don't understand what your issue is. I have been in a financial crunch before but made serious sacrifice to bounce back and made some serious cash working just barely over minimum wages while going to school fulltime. I guess some people just can't handle the idea of making sacrifices. Good for you. But you know what, your personal experience has nothing to do with larger patterns, such as the fact that household debt in Canada is continuing to climb, and that many Canadian families are living paycheck to paycheck. Putting aside the matter of your personal privilege, the effect of a depression in consumer spending, given the fact that private industry is hoarding cash and government is cutting back, would be to drop us into a recession. Personal sacrifices is stupid straw man that idiots who don't understand the economy use when they're challenged on their bullshit. Taking on debt was also incentivised by the government during the recession, exactly as a way of fending of economic collapse due to our economy's reliance on the US. We are not in a good position economically as a country, and morality tales about what people should do doesn't solve that.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 20:58
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:My last post was done partly in jest to poke some of you guys a little bit so there was some exaggeration. I'm not saying people shouldn't try to have control of their finances, or that people shouldn't plan for the future. My problem is that framing this as an issue of personal responsibility and temperance misses the point. These macroeconomic conditions didn't come out of nowhere, there were specific incentives created by the Federal government as a way to stave off recession. You can't push the economy down a certain path, then turn around and blame people for it. I'm not personally planning on holding debts in the near future, and I've advised my parents to pay off their remaining debts now, because I see bad times ahead, but even if you or I weather an economic downturn relatively unscathed, there are thousands of people who won't, often through no fault of their own. I'm not even talking about people spending on excess luxuries, I'm talking about people who work 40-60 hrs a week to make end meet, who've seen their income stagnate in recent years while rent kept increasing, and who are just managing to get by. They exist, I know quite a few of them personally from jobs I've worked, and all it would take is one good shakeup (say from drastic public sector cuts) for hours to be cut of for them to be let go, and for a lot of suffering to happen. These people are not profligate spenders, and EI won't be enough to tide everybody over when jobs become scarce all around. I'm not even talking about the whole public service staggered pay thing, since as stupid as that is I don't really think the public service is the best example of urban poor I'm talking about. But people should care about this stuff, not just out of simple human decency or empathy, but because these structural conditions have the potential to destroy wealth and dampen growth, and that affects everyone. The economy is not some magic uncontrollable force, and the government absolutely has effects on the way economic growth happens, and the Harper government, for all it's self-congratulating on the subject, has not performed well. E: Sorry, I don't mean this to sound accusatory. It's just the personal responsibility meme pisses me off quite a bit. We can acknowledge that people are to a certain degree masters of their own fate without pretending that it's all totally reducible to individual choices. quaint bucket posted:Not trying to change the topic, but I was wondering if anyone here could shine any light on this news article I was reading. Looking around, I can't seem to find anything more specific either. I'm iffy on this as a project. Letter grades or percentages are a useful generic indicator of a student's standing against an average. As much as it does sort of lump everything together in a single metric, which can be problematic when trying to distinguish between different outcomes for students I don't see how you could operationalize this in a way that would be usable for all of our education institutions, even just at the level of evaluating different schools or teachers, let alone for the much more fragmented process of post secondary admission like you said. I sort of get why people would want something more personalized, since a letter grade really doesn't tell you all that much about why a student is succeeding or failing, but sort of personal focus seems more appropriate to teacher student interactions, rather than scrapping a relatively functional indicator like letter grades. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 23:17 on Jun 18, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
THC posted:Maybe SFU will take them. We still have letter grades but our transcripts don't show percentages and our numerical percent marks (which may or may not be accessible in any one of several different online systems depending on the professor) are often wildly out of whack from our transcript letter grades. Once I got C+ on my transcript for a course where my actual grade was 40 percent. There's no rhyme or reason, no transparency. Grading on a curve could explain that. Letter grades can also be helpful for stuff like that. If the average was lower than expected, everybody might be bumped up so that the statistical distribution made sense.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:"Hmm, the class mean was a 40. There's no possible way that I'm a poor instructor or the tests lacked validity, It's just that every semester I get whacky students with weird population means entirely by chance!" Yeah, but I have to say that a few times I've appreciated bell-curving, since it proved that it was the teacher, not me. And some teachers are just never getting kicked out for being poo poo, since their departments don't care (ECON  )E: Specifically, it was one ECON class with a prof who, memorably, told us our degrees were going to be worthless due to the over accreditation of ECON majors, and then proceeded to talk about his book, No PhDs Please, in monotonous, heavily accented English. Can't say I was sorry to see I had gotten an A despite my actual percentage mark. Somehow, he has not been removed yet. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 00:59 on Jun 19, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2013 00:48
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Coyne is just really weird. He's grossly pro-market in nearly all situations, but I get the feeling all it would take for him to vote NDP would be for the NDP to run on a platform of a massive transfer of wealth to the poor and a carbon tax. Coyne seems to operate under the assumption that the government is largely incompetent and shouldn't do anything it doesn't have to.* But he doesn't have the bootstraps, poor-people-deserve-their-fate-oh-and-global-warming-isn't-real mentality that usually goes along with it. *Which, sometimes I sort of get, given that many of my extended family works in the public service, and they tell me some horror stories about how shittily programs are run, especially when they cut budgets but don't bother just ending the program, despite making it completely ineffective. I really wish the topic of government inefficiency could be talked about without giving fuel to assholes who want to cut social programs, instead of actually looking for ways to improve service delivery and cost.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 23, 2013 16:47
|
|
|
Blade_of_tyshalle posted:Christ, least he could do is zip the jacket up over his Snickers-gut. Look at his disrespect for the uniform. Harper does that all the time:  [G8 Summit 2013 Press Conference] Everybody knows you're supposed to button your jacket when you stand up! 
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Sales taxes are regressive, though. You're better off tweaking the income tax brackets more or adding some sort of super profits tax (or an oil sands industry tax!) than a sales tax. Yeah, but this is Alberta. The reason they don't have a sales tax isn't because it's regressive.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 25, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
Entropic posted:The Ottawa Red Tapirs flakeloaf posted:This is unironically a good name. Baird's Tapirs  We can have the cute little baby for the Mascot, and everybody will associate with Baird's rabid shouting! Win-Win! The Ottawa Baird's Tapirs
|
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
OK, my new plan for the Senate is to just have a public trial where we push them off of the cliff on Parliament Hill any time one of them is obviously corrupt and leaching of off taxpayers. That way we can keep the appointed senate, while still giving the people a voice via judicious use of mob justice. E: VVVVI guess we can also periodically burn it down every time they neuter an important bill too. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 18:10 on Jun 26, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jun 26, 2013 18:07
|
|
|
If we're going to become the world's hospital, might as well go whole hog and just start the socialist revolution.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2013 06:57
|
|
|
quaint bucket posted:They are trained to assume the worst when they approach a car or a house, as they should. The LGR did not give the added protection and the LGR check was automatically part of the CIPC check. Furthermore, the LGR ran the risk of providing a false sense of security which proved itself to be frightening true when a police officer was following up on someone with a warrant, checked the system and went "welp, no guns well then all safe!"As a result, she died. I don't own any guns, nor am I particularly pro gun, but the LGR was extremely poorly conceived and implemented. Voluntary participation was always going to be low, but when you combined it with a fee gun owners had to pay to register (non-payment of which could result in confiscation of guns), it essentially became a punitive measure on gun owners who took the time to register. This is aside from the huge cost overruns (like hundreds of millions) and the fact that the AG found that the program had no way to track its own effectiveness (all claims that the LGR was effective are anecdotal). It's worth remembering that the registry was brought in as one of several gun control measures in the wake of the Montreal Massacre. It was not crafted as a result of careful study of the problem, but as a reaction to an event that feature a long-barrel gun. Most gun deaths in Canada are from handguns anyway, so it's not like the LGR targeted the largest danger from guns. Mandating the destruction of the records was a hilarious "gently caress You, Libs" by Harper, though.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2013 20:19
|
|
|
Wasn't the oil coming in from the US? I heard it was a shipment from North Dakota heading to Saint John's for refining. E: Found a news link, though it's not where I remember hearing it from. http://news.yahoo.com/canadian-oil-train-headed-irvings-saint-john-refinery-191528931.html Pinterest Mom posted:I just got caught up thanks to Audra Williams' great post on this, and that makes it sound even scummier than you did. I had forgotten how thoroughly ghastly the mayoral sex stuff was. What I'm trying to figure out is how he won. There are no claims there was any rigging involved, so I'm guessing it's just that being a white person was enough to convince people in the riding association to vote for him. I don't know, I naively expected better from the ONDP. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 00:35 on Jul 9, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 00:24
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Yeah, if normally cool folks from the ~nonpartisan~ Broadbent Institute are essentially accusing her of ableism in public, it's not too hard to imagine how vile it's getting in private. How is Adam Giambrone blind? Granted, I'm not really informed on his personal life, hadn't heard about him prior to this mess being mentioned in this thread, but the pictures and clips I've seen from googling his name don't paint a picture of a blind person. He's loving reading a document in one of them, while walking. Am I being obtuse? Was he blinded recently or something?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2013 03:59
|
|
|
Alctel posted:I have no idea why they have such a hard-on for Israel In all seriousness, I think it's because Conservative foreign policy is plagiarized off the Bush administration. Same reason we're getting all this weird jingoistic military poo poo with the war of 1812 and going back to the old rank system. There may have been people pushing for it before, but the Conservatives are, IMO, using American conservative positions to benefit from the messaging and spin it can provide. It's basically a warping of the Canadian national identity to better serve conservative interest groups.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 04:43
|
|
|
Paper Jam Dipper posted:Okay. I'm not really trying to go into how our deficit is a lie or anything. Why are my taxes going to Palestine and/or Israel? Is it a global political thing? This isn't the place to get into the complexities and problems of foreign aid, but what do you think CIDA did? It was the department of giving money to foreigners before DFAIT swallowed it. We give out a lot more than 300 million over 5 years. It's just the dominant understanding of how international development works, and especially in the case of Palestine, it often constitutes emergency aid for the provision of things like food or medical care.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 06:38
|
|
|
FeloniousDrunk posted:I just googled and got nothing, how much money does Israel give to foreign aid? It's a comparatively pretty well-off country. As an irrelevance, I once had a CIDA-funded RA-ship; it was almost entirely wasted money, but it was a job, so I did it. From what I remember, Israel gives foreign aid through sending experts abroad and doing training programs. I don't think they do any direct cash funding like many other countries do.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 07:03
|
|
|
HappyHippo posted:Looking for polls on the subject it seems the majority of Canadians support foreign aid and think we ought to spend more. I think TT was talking about helping reserves. And that is a problem of deep rooted racism and a lack of empathy. VV The line TT was responding to was "don't blame foreign aid for domestic shortcomings" Political Whores fucked around with this message at 17:28 on Jul 10, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 17:16
|
|
|
PK loving SUBBAN posted:Ugh what smarmy little shits the two of them must be together. He talks exactly like a guy I know (and loathe) who has an internship with the Ontario PCs. Just smarmy, artificial bullshit personality, and always dropping mentions of things he wants people to be impressed with (like Paikin did with 'He and I have spent time practising our Arabic together'). He was the most infuriating person in my seminar on Human Rights in IR, and he wouldn't stop going on about 'Natural Law' and how awesome it was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2013 19:37
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 17, 2024 13:08 |
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:Is the liberal committee that talent starved ? What about all those go-getters at Stikemann & Tory's who fist-pump the warchest every 5 months ? So you're in favour of just stringently capping emission then? Or are you one of those 'but the Economy  ' climate-change-denialists-in-all-but-name-only libertarian morons. Calling Eurobonds tax fraud does not make you look economically literate, fyi. And what the hell do flow through shares have to do anything? It seems a weird piece of policy to harp on as important. E: And honestly, the 'they're all the same' fatalism is pretty loving stupid too. The liberals are awful, the NDP has flaws, but either of them would be better than the Cons are now. Being neoliberal doesn't make the liberals as actively regressive on things like prison policy the way the Cons have been, or as anti-science. Political Whores fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Jul 11, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2013 20:19
|
|