Ikantski posted:

Has it done that in any meaningful way in Toronto?

Melian Dialogue posted:

What's a crypto-fascist exactly? Do I always ensure to use PGP when I send out my fascist newsletter? Is that it? Pretty weird of a fascist to have routinely voted NDP in the last three elections, and been a donations paying member for multiple years and volunteered for an election campaign for the same party.

jfood posted:

Shitheads calling themselves 'engineers' drinking $12 beers out of a jam jar, counting down the days 'til their jobs are outsourced to India is the 'Silicon Valley type'.

Melian Dialogue posted:

Its very easy to hand wave people aside by just calling them fascists when they disagree with you, just like those on the right who just handwave aside the "communists" on the left.

Melian Dialogue posted:

It still makes me shudder that we have, with prob 90% certainty, have seen eachother on the street in real life since I live so close to him.

Ikantski posted:

The most adorable criticism of a gay person in the thread so far.

Melian Dialogue posted:

I've never argued against dissent against the state that isnt state sanctioned, I've argued against dissent against the state that is violent being inherently wrong. But blah blah blah diversity of tactics always comes out as a trope in this debate.

Melian Dialogue posted:

Melian Dialogue posted:

edit: To add some actual substance other than snark:

Actually yes, we are talking about anarchist shitheads smashing things and burning cop cars. This is literally "a thing" that happened at Rexton. Not to mention literal IEDs, and long-guns. Yet, despite these findings, people roll their eyes at the "tactilol" police response.

Its unfortunate that the Rexton demonstrations had plenty of merit on its own, but that they didnt self-police out the violent elements out (like I said, probably in the name of diversity of tactics). Thus, the police had to do it for them so no one would get killed or maimed over a political protest.

Baronjutter posted:

Maybe it's pretty ok that the discussion not go on

Melian Dialogue posted:

Look infernal machines, I know you're trying to make your point here, but I'll stop the rehash if you will too. Its really irrelevant and this is sort of my point about this whole debacle is that its easy to start painting people into whatever category that is easily brushed aside. So, if you wanna argue with me about C-51 or whatever lets argue about C-51 instead of "what makes me a fascist"?

Melian Dialogue posted:

I wouldn't consider myself an expert, but I'll provide some of the sources I've used to come to my own beliefs on the bill (rather than CPC talking points, or conversely, Rabble.ca blog posts). When the bill was undergoing review in the Senate, I contacted the Library of Parliament and got their official Legislative Summary which wasn't posted on the website for some reason. I dunno if it is posted now, but I figured I'd upload it for others to read through to serve as another look at the bill. Legislative Summaries are research that is conducted by the Parliamentary Information and Research Service, so its a pretty decent government source that, while of course not completely unbiased, serves better than talking points by a Conservative MP on the subject.

I've uploaded it here: http://docdro.id/r8gqTo5

C-51 Legislative Summary posted:

New section 83.221of the Code requires a mens rea of knowledge or of recklessness and makes every person liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years who,
-by communicating statements,
-knowingly advocates or promotes the commission of terrorism offences in general
-while knowing that any of those offences will be committed or being reckless as to whether any of those offences may be committed, as a result of such communication.

C-51 Legislative Summary posted:

Bill C-51 provides for obtaining warrants for the seizure and forfeiture of publications (new section 83.222 of the Code) that are “terrorist propaganda” and for ordering the deletion of all electronic materials that are terrorist propaganda from a computer system (new section 83.223 of the Code). However, this order is limited to computer systems within the court’s jurisdiction.

...

no criminal charges are necessary to obtain such warrants of seizure.

C-51 Legislative Summary posted:

Clause 17 of the bill lowers the burden of proof required to obtain a recognizance with conditions (new section 83.3(2) of the Code)and to arrest a person without a warrant if the person is likely to commit a terrorist activity (new section 83.3(4) of the Code).

Brannock posted:

It's insane to me that people are getting their hackles up about 24 Sussex, even if it's only just the pundits. If the White House fell into disrepair it would be regarded as a source of national embarrassment.

Melian Dialogue posted:

Wholeheartedly agree here, this is ultimate a subjective judgment call on trust in these institutions. Thus far, I have seen very little proof in past activities to warrant the need to be untrustworthy of CSIS or CSEC other than the halo effect from the United States' intelligence scandals. One will have to judge themselves I guess.

Ikantski posted:

I voted for the guy who was going to balance the federal budget and reward job creators by reducing small business tax by 2%.

brucio posted:

Why does anyone engage swagger on this. Any poster who has looked at a canpol thread in the last 6 months has seen him post the same thing over and over again.

Cultural Imperial posted:

yeah i mean that's totally why we should all watch fox news


to be cogent and poo poo

Melian Dialogue posted:

I could be wrong but Im fairly certain Weibo was convicted of bombing a different oil site, and this bombing that was supported by the RCMP was just a dud one designed to build up the credentials of a potential informant to Weibo for conviction.

Albino Squirrel posted:

So, their stated goal is to fund infrastructure by.... selling off infrastructure? Profitable infrastructure at that?

Why? I mean, what possible ideological reason underlies that plan? Even the Ontario PCs are against it.

Ikantski posted:

OPC never wanted to sell the majority share of it and they had a majority, they could have sold it when they had the chance. The banker also originally said don't sell it until Wynne changed the panel's mandate. This is probably the more intelligent article Albino Squirrel is looking for rather than my rantings.

Square Peg posted:

If the G20 is any indication, that don't mean poo poo.

Melian Dialogue posted:

unless he just wants to become the next Ezra Levant

Femtosecond posted:

What do you think were the main causes of this?

a) Demographic change in the riding
b) Riding redistribution changes
c) Candidate
d) Trudeau-mania
e) other?

In the past I was under the impression it was a clearly NDP leaning riding, but clearly that's changed.

Helsing posted:

Also keep in mind most provincial NDPers in Toronto already got taken out by the provincial Liberals in the last election so this seems to be part of a broader trend.

quote:

...retired justice Lee Ferrier ruled the assault on Nobody was “barely over the line of wrongfulness,” and the fallout from the assault has “wreaked havoc on the life of this officer,”

PT6A posted:

Tough on crime: a terrible mistake until it's applied to people I don't like.

eXXon posted:

The sad part of all of this is that there doesn't seem to be any grand purpose or at least scheming corruption in any of this. Yes, $2 billion or so were wasted in that Mississauga gas plant scandal to win a byelection, but what's the point of the rest of this poo poo? Surely there are more effective methods to benefit from cronyism and buy votes?

Ikantski posted:

2013 was right before the provincial election and Thunder Bay is a couple thousand votes from going NDP so that one makes sense.

Ikantski posted:

Extra electricity is that they're hell bent on building as many windmills as possible.

flakeloaf posted:

It is pretty loving berko that the city needs to enjoin someone from doing something that's already illegal when they have a perfectly serviceable team of bylaw and actuallaw enforcement professionals who should be vibrating themselves to completion at the chance to enforce these laws.

What is the city's justification for directing bylaw/police not to investigate this?

sliderule posted:

The exact same way that when cabbies break traffic laws, it severely disadvantages those who follow them. So boo loving hoo. Decades of their own lovely, illegal behaviour puts them in weak standing.

It's like a serial murderer complaining that someone assaulted them.

Mr Luxury Yacht posted:

Like yeah I agree Uber as a company is poo poo but it's not something that you'd be able to enforce easily or cheaply.

flakeloaf posted:

It's hardly a pile of resources, you get a guy, you give him a phone, he makes an account, books a ride, you have a tow truck meet you at the other end. Give it a good two or three days of very publicly hooking people's cars and you'll start to see that stuff drop off. And it has an added upside of generating revenue - which is basically what bylaw officers are for - because there's no point in contesting your fine if uber's already agreed to pay it on your behalf.

flakeloaf posted:

I completely agree that street-level enforcement is like trying to kill a snake by whacking it on the tail with a dead mouse, but in the absence of a more coherent legal strategy that tells uber the company to stop existing in your jurisdiction, it's all a municipality can be expected to do. If they're not doing it, then the victims of that crime (the cabbies) are within their rights to ask why. Just not by driving down the highway at 2 kilometres per day yapping incomprehensibly into a ten dollar megaphone.

PT6A posted:

They should allow them to continue to operate because it makes the city a better place to live, and it should be the mandate of any municipal government to make that municipality a better place to live.

Sure, it may be against by-laws, but it's unquestionably a boon to the residents of the cities where it operates. What happened to all the "gently caress monopolies!" talk from a few pages ago? Taxis are the worst and they deserve to be hosed, even by pricks like Uber.

DariusLikewise posted:

Because now you are allowing Uber to become the new monopoly in a year or two by squeezing taxis out via virture of being regulated and Uber not and don't think for a second Uber would continue to operate as nicely without competition.

Constant Hamprince posted:

The barrier to entry is a lot lower for ridesharing services than it is for taxis. How would Uber 'destroy' its competitors?

Brannock posted:

How about an informal moratorium on this sort of blazing insight, ironic or otherwise, until JT actually does something worthy of it?

Helsing posted:

I realize this article has already been posted but I feel like it really calls out for a bit of annotation.

Also Ikantski this is what you've been labelling a "progressive government" which, depending on how one thinks about it, either suggests progressive is a meaningless term that says more about how a party markets itself than how it governs or else that "progressive" is not the right label to be using for the Federal Liberals.


(1) -- Bill Morneau was the chair of the C.D. Howe Institute until 2014.

(2) -- This is exactly what happened at the beginning of Dalton McGuinty's first term as Ontario premier in 2003.

(3) -- To reiterate: this is the agency that employed Bill Morneau up until last year!

(4) a.-- Liberal economics 101: putting a couple hundreds bucks in the pockets of "middle class" Canadians is worth undermining the fiscal solvency of universal government programs like medicare.

(4) b.-- That "middle class tax cut" is disproportionately going to favour the rich


(5) -- The Canadian Council of Chief Executives is a powerful and influential business lobby group founded in the 1970s. It's current Chair person is one Paul Desmarais Jr., Co-Chief Executive Officer of Power Corporation of Canada and a native son of Canada's very own domestic oligarchy. The Desmarais family are notorious for their close relationship to federal politicians, especially in the Liberal party, and the aptly named Power cCorporation has lined the pockets of many Liberal (and other) politicians and operatives.:


(6) -- John Manley, who is President and Chief Executive Officer of the Canadian Council of Chief Executives. Oh, he was also Deputy Prime Minister between 2002 and 2003 for the Liberals. Noticing a pattern yet?

(7) -- Liberal campaigning 101: promise anything to get elected, especially if it involves "the middle class". Don't worry, after you're elected you can blame the previous government for running a secret deficit, or claim that international economic conditions were worse than expected.

(8) -- Modern "Keynesianism" 101: nevermind what Keynes may or may not have said. Never mind the fact that the historical record shows that the middle class in Canada is mostly a byproduct of 1) direct spending by government through universal programs and 2) a strong labour movement. Instead rely on an empirically questionable and economically imprecise set of assumptions about "multiplier" effects, and claim that the hands outs you give to your business friends and / or a couple key ridings you'll need to hold on to are meant to stimulate the economy. Whatever you do don't actually establish any more universal social programs paid for out of general evenue, such as daycare, dental care, optometry, pharma-care, a guaranteed basic income, etc. because those might actually work, which would make people less reliant on market incomes, which in turn would make them less dependent on their masters in the private sector, and that would really not be in the interests of the Liberal party's real base base, would it? (Here's a pro read for those of you who want an old but still good source on why corporate executives will tend to oppose government transfers, even when it's seemingly in their own best economic interests.)

tl;dr -- don't get fooled again

So yeah, here we go again with the party that did more to cute the Canadian welfare state than Harper could have dreamed of -- the party that slashed our social programs and then ploughed the money into corporate income tax cuts. The party that promised to renegotiate our bad trade deals on the campaign trail and instead doubled down on them once in office.

As I've repeated ad nauseum, it really doesn't matter what a party promises to do while campaigning. Actually look at who the party recruits, and check out where party members end up after serving their time in government.

But hey, they're gonna legalize weed.

p.s. -- because I can't go one post without complaining about the NDP. Read over this post and if you feel outraged by anything here then take a long hard think on how you feel about Brian Topp or Bard Lavigne going to work for corporate lobbying / strategy firms. A social democratic party that lets it's top leaders and advisers sup at the trough of corporate corruption (and this is certainly corruption regardless of the fact it's technically legal) is a bad joke.

Cultural Imperial posted:

I find it fitting that the poster most willing to get deep dicked by Trudeau II is not old enough to remember what a loving dumpster fire of corruption the Chretien liberals were.

Brannock posted:

Sorry that I don't want to read endless and identical griping about how the libs are totally gonna lib anyday now! Yes Bill Morneau is bad etc

Hal_2005 posted:

Nope. Kindly check the act dumbass. I had to read it more then twice with legal counsel verifying each statement so dig deeper then a NDP press release which is totally unbiased, amirte?

jm20 posted:

Let me stop you right there, by-laws are not laws. The city can pass whatever they want, but enforcing those by-laws will always fall onto by-law enforcement officers who are not police. The chances of proper enforcement in a city like Toronto are slim to none, so they can continue to whine about their city established monopoly being ruined.

jm20 posted:

Laws should be passed provincially with regard to insurance for ridesharing not in cities. Even if they file an injunction they will just continue to operate and pay the fines so not sure why you think an injunction will do anything.