|
Well duh, Google Cache is still going to hold onto it. So, no, its not for a high speed job
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:28 on Feb 2, 2016 |
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
If you really are that interested, its for a political internship/position. Nothing special or running for office, but I'm slowly participating less and less on the forums anyways, and lurking more.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:While true, it's not just white Canadians either; I remain pretty pissed off that CBC keeps giving air time to that Maulik guy, who thought that a terrorist attack that killed 6 Canadians (alongside 23 other victims) in Burkina Faso was proof positive that we need to be bombing the poo poo out of people whenever possible. Can we please get real, and accept that the only thing having 6 CF-18s deployed to the middle east does is make us feel better? 6 fighter bombers make no loving difference, even if it was clear bombings are helpful in the long term. And ultimately you just have to accept that sometimes people die in violent attacks on foreign soil, and sometimes those people are Canadians, and there's not all that much that can be done to prevent it. Can we stop with this disingenuous argument about the nihilism of our contribution to bombing? It's a really underhanded way to push your position by throwing your hands up and saying "Well look, I'm not necessarily against bombing, its just that 6 jets won't make a difference so, whatever". Just go out and say you don't support the idea that Canada's best way to support the fight against ISIL is bombing, or that Canada isn't playing up its strengths by conducting airstrikes (and that there's a more effective role in training, humanitarian aid, diplomatic presence etc. etc.). It's a really lazy argument because it has no meaning in the context of a Canadian path to pursue our involvement in world affairs. Everyone is aware that 6 fighter jets isn't a lot, hell, 800 soldiers on the ground to train Iraqis is a drop in the bucket, and even the billions we're sending in humanitarian aid is a drop in the bucket because we're a country of 30 Million, so without context all of these contributions are meaningless. This position is meaningless in the context of Canadian capabilities, which are obviously limited compared to other, larger and richer nations. The issue with fighter jets is and should always be about the type of contribution before we even discuss number. I mean would you honestly suddenly be more in support of bombing if we sent in 30 fighters? No, you wouldn't, so stop with this Fox News type of undercutting. Thankfully, even in the CBC Comment discussion about this topic many people could see the MND's argument as being a strong one, where we give our best bang for our buck (so to speak) in our contribution, which is training soldiers, giving aid, and assisting in operational planning and information gathering. Our outdated fighter jets capabilities can be much more readily filled by allied air forces with the capability. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
jm20 posted:He wants to bully Putin into accepting NATO's continued domination over Russia and turn Syria into the wonderfully stable state of Libya. Given that we have brought Iran and even Cuba out of isolation, I wonder what he hopes to achieve by essentially putting Russia into isolation in his version of world politics. Not good, not good. NATO's continued domination of Russia? Jesus, you've been drinking the RT News kool aid too much jm20. PittTheElder posted:Honestly, I would. Then at least we'd be actually committing to the thing we were doing. I don't think people appreciate how ineffectual those six jets probably are. "Committing to the thing we were doing" is ridiculous. In your mind what is the appropriate number of jets in such a hypothetical scenario of being "committed to the thing we were doing"? Again, how is this argument any different when we compare the context of our other potential contributions? 800 ground troops training Iraqis is just as "ineffectual" in your line of thinking as 6 jets in Kuwait. Considering the 6 jets is literally the most we could furnish with the resources available, I really don't think you even have any context or understanding of what constitutes a significant contribution. Ineffectual is all contextual here, because it is still a coalition effort, Canada is contributing to a larger mission. Do I think Canada has a better role to play then sending a couple fighter jets? Yes, BUT that has to do with the type of contribution, not the number or size. This whole argument is completely disingenous to try and sneak in your main argument, and it's needlessly makes any contribution purely cynical due to the resource limitations of a potential contribution. Everyone is well aware we're a nation of 30 million with something like 30-40 working jets, so contextually in a part of a larger effort 6 jets is the Air Force equivalent of 800 ground troops if we compare it to the larger coalition effort. If you are against Canada contributing to this effort, or at least in a specific type of way, be against that type of way, not some hamfisted attempt at sneaking in your true position to try and sway over fence-sitters on this issue. Its the same way idiots roll their eyes at Trudeau's comments about sending warm gear to refugees ("HERP DERP WINTER JACKETS IN A DESERT? What's the point?!") [despite the fact that most people's perception of a desert is from movies, and not that actually they get freezing cold at night and in the mountains]) Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Feb 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
Helsing posted:What I find disengenous about this entire argument is that it's always predicated on the notion that the United States and the international coalition it leads actually has a desire to create a stable and functional society or workable state system in the Middle East. I am perfectly alright with this argument, I may disagree with it, but my point isn't to try and handwave away legitimate positions like this one. I wasn't explicit enough in my post, but my post should be read with the assumption that the person in question debating the whole 6 fighter jets thing is in agreement with the premise that the role of Canada is to somehow be involved in the war against ISIL. If you are someone who disagrees with that, my whole post there is moot because that is not my intention. This argument that "What's the point! 6 fighter jets won't do anything!" when the poster is in actuality against the entire mission is what I have a problem with. It's disengenous, and it provides ammunition to naysayers in other international efforts ("Whats the point of humanitarian aid? Drop in the bucket!" or "Why bother bringing in refugees when Turkey, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries won't?!" ) If you disagree with the coalition, or fight against ISIL, please argue that position. If you are against bombing ISIL, but agree with our membership in some capacity to fight ISIL, then please state the particulars of that position. However, my point in summary is that it is disingenuous to claim to be in support of a coalition effort against ISIL, but decry the supposed "uselessness" of 6 fighter jets being sent in as support for a coalition air force if you are truly in the end fully disagreeing with the coalition effort in the first place!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 9, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
jm20 posted:Having a strong Russia is beneficial to the stability of the world. Their perceived threat from NATO encroachment is legitimate, and they also have the right to a 'sphere of influence' just as much as the US or any other major player. Isolating them is a bad strategy if you want stability and peace. You don't need to watch RT or Fox News to come to these conclusions. Ah the old Sophistic "Russia is just as bad as the USA/NATO!" argument that gets trotted out by RT News and other Russian state propaganda. Such an odd marriage between leftists and RT News, considering the Russian state is one of the worst and egregious examples of a literal police state (lol meanwhile Snowden lobbing softballs at Putin during a TV interview). Yes, surely Russian aggression into multiple sovereign countries is "beneficial" the the stability of the world, we already have one superpower that does it so it logically follows why not have multiple?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
PT6A posted:No, I judge them on how they behave, which is completely reasonable. Yes, I insist they have a presence. That's not an issue of political affiliation, though; Stockwell Day was every bit as much of a poo poo leader as Dion, and at least Lenin and Castro have some loving charisma. I don't think I'm being unreasonable. Really though? You voted twice for the most aspergers ridden, uncharismatic, tantrum-having robot of a PM and it was Dion's lack of masculinity/presence that bothered you? At least be consistent in your petty voting justifications. The worst part is, for me to call you out on this is because when people spent hours jerking off on Harper's persona, I absolutely thought it was trivial because for me my position on Harper had nothing to do with him being an autistic WASP. During that time I never recalled you calling out Harper on that either. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 06:12 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 06:08
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:If there's a housing crash, it'll happen under Trudeau but Harper actually tightened CHMC rules quite a bit. Uhh? http://www.fin.gc.ca/n08/data/08-051_1-eng.asp CMHC 2007 posted:Longer amortization periods (from 25 years up to 40 years).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 06:22
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not, actually. Again, explain to me how on the one hand you can rant and rave over the lack of Dion's charm, yet not make a single comment on Harper's robot nerd limp-wristed accountant persona. Its completely hypocritical, when compared to Harper, Dion comes off like loving JFK. My criticism of you is directly challenging your ability to assess what even constitutes charisma, since in none of your rants about awful personalities have you once mentioned Harper. At best, Harper comes off as awkward dad, not the leader of a nation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Sm8z-479yk Not that it should matter, but if the hill you want to die on is backing up your ability to 'feel out' what makes a good persona for a leader, I have yet to hear anything inspiring or worthy that Harper has said. I mean, look at his speech post-Ottawa attack where loving Parliament was attacked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gc1BiEd7ig skip to 2:15, sounds like him congratulating his staff on an all-nighter, not the wake of a terrorist attack on loving Parliament. No emotion, no anger, nothing. Limp-wristed and pathetic. Now my point isnt to somehow support this stupid kind of analysis of politicians, but rather highlight the ridiculous hypocrasy on the rightwing when their best leader in awhile is a fat accountant and they trot out the Dion-teacher, and Trudeau-gay tropes I mean poo poo, look at this video of Dion supporting Ukrainian diaspora and government against what is going on in the Donbass. It actually has passion in it, as if he was personally angered by Sergei Ivanov's comments about Ukrainian-Canadians: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6xBkrn57RU Look at a similar topic; Harpers speech to the Royal Canadian Navy's deployment to the black sea: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EI7pznUglAc His speech at 2:00 doesnt sound like a leader deploying military forces as a show of strength and solidarity but more like a kid's model UN speech ("these things must not be allowed to stand" sounds like he is respectfully correcting an employee at a Yoga-cult store). I mean, this was considered a "blunt" speech shows you the low standards Harper had in his persona and leadership. 'Blunt' my rear end Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 08:07
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Harper never held a gun to a 25 year old's head and forced them to buy a 700k pre-build condo in downtown Toronto. Ahhh finally, the last vestige of the lovely conservative argument, personal responsibility. Welp folks, pack it up, why do any policy to influence behaviour, there's nothing we can do to make anyone do anything. Nothing gets past this guy.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:I'm trying to understand why any of you are upset by this, is it because you're jealous you can't buy a house, why would you care if joe schmuck wants a detached home with a yard, wouldn't that be a good thing for you when the housing bubble crashes and you can float in on your cloud of smug and buy their home for a fraction of what he put into it? Yes, see, no dire economic effects have ever been created by housing bubbles and people buying homes they cant afford, nothing like say the second greatest recession since the Great Depression 
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Maybe if Dion had been the Liberal leader the second time around, but Ignatieff was and he has conclusively shown himself to be crazier than Harper ever was. Still being a giant hypocrite even to your awfully defined terms of leadership persona. Still waiting on your explanation on how Dion is a manbaby whimp, Ignatieff is a stodgy old dad, yet Harper in your eyes had the strong leadership presence you apparently hold so dear to your heart when voting. I say this as someone who "gets" what your point is about leadership presence/motivation (since afterall, political leaders arent technocrats running the ministry but rather more like cheer leaders and strategic vision directors), but completely thinks your radar for this is utter poo poo. Do it ironically posted:People in this thread act like they're economic and financial geniuses so I just assume everyone's finances are great and they will not be affected by a downturn/recession Except a lot of effects from a loving Recession can still hit you hard no matter how big of a financial genius you personally are, unless you live Unabomber style off the grid and are sonehow self reliant. I like the subtle nod to bootstraps too by implying only financial idiots are affected during a recession. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Feb 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2016 20:13
|
|
|
Rime posted:Point out that it's the schmucks who spent 4 years partying every night at Uni and skipped almost every class who are walking into $80k out the door while the studious ones are sitting unemployed on the bread line. Jesus christ dude, seek help. Depression and literally suicidal ideation is not strictly the result of economic conditions, its a clear sign of mental health issues. I am literally in the same boat as you, as are many of my friends, but I am definitely not at your stage of depression. I'm not trying to wave away your criticism of economic prosperity and the way its tied into a dumb university education, but it's clear that for you there's more going on. Honestly, this isn't snarky internet posting, please seek some help.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 02:40
|
|
|
Rime posted:We disagree on pretty much everything but I appreciate the concern. I'm not planning on killing myself tomorrow, however I'm quite fed up that at nearly 26 I'm working utterly garbage gigs below my CV, for starvation wages, and watching my friends do the same as they slowly lose the reasonably paid positions they acquired last decade. Look, I don't know your circumstances but is there a reason you haven't pursued some type of post secondary? Sure it's no instant guarantee, but the macro numbers on wages and quality of life are still higher than no degree. What about tech programs or trades? I thought you were doing some GIS thing or something. Even a one year program that has some sort of job placement would be good. While I'm no advocate of bootstraps philosophy for public policy, for personal philosophy sometimes it really is the only thing you can do to keep yourself from slipping into that cynical, poisonous self-wallowing. I've been there too so I know how soul sucking it can be, I mean I'm your age and only now finishing myt undergrad with limited potential for more fulfilling employment. Positivity isn't a philosophy, its pretty much a mandatory coping mechanism. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:31 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 05:26
|
|
|
I really want to make it clear the distinction I have with agreeing with Jordanh7m's argument and my own bootstraps thing. This argument is solely a coping strategy to deal with the realities of socioeconomic conditions, it's a prescriptive thought on how one person can look at their situation. It is not, and I cannot emphasize this enough, not some deontological position that argues that this ought to be the prevailing philosophy of public policy. Every criticism here over the socioeconomic conditions and nepotism seen in the modern day workplace are valid and need to be tackled on a political level. However, when down to the individual level, to fall onto those realities as a means to drag yourself into a cynical and nihilistic worldview will only create a self fulfilling prophecy. Jordanh7m is correct, you absolutely have to build and exploit your networks available to you. As an immigrant myself who didnt have family networks to begin with I intentionally began creating them to open up opportunities. While you can't control the results of the dice being thrown, you can control how many times or when you throw them.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 07:04
|
|
|
Military is always hiring, just ask CI, I'm sure he'll tell you everything about it  . But, serious, if you either go a technical route that has a clear civilian counterpart, or you go Officer with subsidized education in something non-combat arms, even the least gung-ho type can make a pretty decent career in the RCAF and RCN. Though honestly, avoid the Army side if you have no interest in playing pretend soldier because there's plenty of tactilol types there. Also, Trudeau indicated in the future (in the election though, wasnt actually tabled in this year's budget) that veterans would receive free university after service. But, if you're dumb and go NCM Infantry, unless you wanna be a CSOR/JTF2 sniper tactilol warrior (nothing wrong with that if its your thing or you wanna be a cop after) then I have no sympathy for your poor choices in life. Of course you have to be okay with being an imperialist-babykiller-Eichmann-banality-of-evil for the NATO death machine Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Feb 26, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Feb 26, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
Eh, doesn't look all that damning. She was essentially an intern at a law firm who I doubt would be privy to any part of the collection part or decision-making. Highly doubt as an articling student she was in on this conspiracy to exploit aboriginal claimants. edit: Sorry, reading comprehension. Missed the part about her brother being a key decision maker in this process. I missed that part completely. She probably knew all about it. Cultural Imperial posted:Why'd she move to Pakistan from 2002 to 2006? In the CBC profile it says her family farm in nowhere, Manitoba went under, so I wouldn't say it'd be completely unheard of immigrant families moving back to their support structure to make ends meet. Then again she was 25 years old so thats odd. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 18:13
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Jus belli, ut qui vicissent, iis quos vicissent, quemadmodum vellent, imperarent. I've heard this dumb argument from CAF members for years now and its still a dumb one. "We won! tough poo poo!".This stupid argument would only work if Canada's policy today was still neo-expansionist or something and we're busy pretending to be the Caeser's Legion from Fallout. It's a dumb one too because one of the most duplicitious parts of the whole colonization of North America is that we never did in fact outright declare war and conquer another nation, instead we pretended they were basically flora and fauna and then subjugated them all the while saying it was for their own best interest. At least if we had actually outright invaded it like the Spanish did to the Aztecs it wouldn't be as duplicitous. Great job, you quoted a historical figure during a time where international relations happened to only exist in terms of war. Fantastic, we should obviously harken back to the days of Julius Ceaser . Next up, you're gonna give me some lovely quote from Clausewitz some officer put at the start of his powerpoint? Let me guess, you were a combat arms NCM in the regforce where obviously you learned everything you needed to know about history and ethics from the BMQ-L rantings of your staffMelian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 22:33 on Mar 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:Vae victis. Learning languages for White people isn't to directly help Aboriginal people (stop saying Native, you sound like an old racist grandpa), its to integrate them into our predominantly white society and to teach non-aboriginals about aboriginal culture so that in the future idiots who don't "get" why we need to give a gently caress about writing wrongs won't be so easily swayed into their echo chamber. Look at New Zealand where Maori is an official language and where traditional aboriginal practices are integrated into the identity of what being a New Zealander is. Thats why you see New Zealand Army members doing Hakas at funerals, but you don't see Canadian Forces members doing the Sundance. Now I'm aware NZ had an easier time because their version of colonialism was "back the strongest warrior tribe and ally with them to ethnically subjugate the others inline", but nevertheless their method of integration is much more appropriate. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 01:18 on Mar 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 01:14
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Also "terrorism" is such a loving nebulous concept that no one agrees on... http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cj-jp/victim/rr09_6/p3.html BTW, the ambiguous nature of terrorism or rather the difficulty in definitions could be just as easily used on hate crime legislation. Terrorism, while internationally and across different areas may have debate over some nuances in definition, the criminal code definition is rather straightforward by connecting mens rea to political/social etc. reasons.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Right, which is why Justin Bourque was charged with terrorism. Justin Bourque's case almost met the threshold, the Crown discussed charging him with terrorism also. Ultimately they did not because the evidence wasn't as strong for a likely conviction, and considering he got life in prison it was rather moot. As well, the case is a grey area because Justin Bourque wasn't a member of an actual larger organization or movement, but rather was just another anti-statist anti-police nutjob. I consider him a terrorist, but I also understand the need for strategic prosecution choices for the better outcome for the public. Thirty years ago it was Irish terrorism, and there was narco-terrorism and other forms too. Terrorism has existed for a long time, so despite the post-9/11 narrative and abuses, its still a valid term to encompass the purpose and intent that "mass murder" or whatever can't fully define.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 06:18
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:20% of Canadians will experience mental illness in their lifetime. If they rape somebody, it's a rape no matter what they call it in their head. If the act they commit meets the legal definition of terrorism, they can try to plead NCR but they still committed the crime. Yup, An offence is still committed if the accused is NCR. This guy, like everyone else, will have his day in court to plead that if he so wishes. One doesn't have to be a raging Conservative Trump supporter to believe "terrorism is a thing". Just like after the Ottawa attacks, everyone in here was saying "Whoa guys, we don't know this guy's motivation yet!", then one day later the video came out where he explicitly explained his motivations. This event seems to be replaying itself again. This isn't a rightwing or leftwing thing, people know that right? What defines the political narrative is how a government sets policies and priorities up. Just because the CPC exploited the situation to its benefit doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 16:55 on Mar 15, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
CI is the leftwing equivalent of Ezra Levant. He rants and raves about generalizations that generally left wing people don't actually believe, but kind of want to because it makes them feel better. For example, see rantings and ravings about those drat jocks in the CAF (primarily composed of athletes in high school who bullied the bookish types), or rednecks who worked on oil fields. Just like right wing people like to believe that ultimately poor people are lazy, or government is inefficient, there is a leftwing equivalent feeling that CI taps into. CI is smart though, cause he's never actually revealed much about himself, his career or education. This way his rantings and ravings can't be turned around on him when people discover that he's a sad angry autistic programmer or a Rime-type who blames all of his failings on ~~sOcieTY~~~
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:and you deserve a victoria cross for the defence of canada fatty oh snap, really using the best of your sleuthing/stalker skills to get your retorts out. Maybe you should work for the RCMP if you're so good at it?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 15, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Helsing posted:Can we just start a CanPol: Daily Diary Edition thread in E/N to try and drain this swamp of lovely posting? God please, I lurk this thread to stay up to date on Canadian politics, not to hear CI's daily diary of "Things I loving hate" or PT6As rants about cigars and Spain. This isn't supposed to be the Canadian General Off topic thread or whatever, someone needs to make a thread in GBS or E/N to keep this poo poo out of here.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 16, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I only rant about those things as they relate to policy decisions in Canada, which should theoretically be well within the topic of a CanPol thread. Sorry you want this thread to be a CanPol RSS feed, I guess? My apologies, of course your status as top 5 poster means only polic- PT6A posted:No one except Saskatchewan gives the faintest gently caress about CFL, just so you know. PT6A posted:Being overweight is unhealthy. You don't get that way by magic. You're either eating too much (a bad habit) or not exercising enough (also a bad habit). PT6A posted:Honestly, though, if you can't follow a list of simple-rear end instructions (which is what a recipe is), what is your rear end doing trying to raise a kid? Raising a kid is way harder than cooking a basic meal! PT6A posted:Well, your optometrist gives you a thingy called a "prescription" that you give to the people that manufacture your lenses, so they know exactly how your eyes are hosed and how to correct for that. Presumably, you could measure your weird-rear end head to see if a given pair of frames will fit, but even if you cannot, given that you can get glasses online for 10% of the price of buying them in a store, you can afford to gently caress up a couple times before getting it right. You could also try on frames at a store, and then order the same ones online from someone that will only charge a fraction of the price! This crap is only in like the first couple pages of your 26 pages worth contribution to CanPol
|
|
#
¿
Mar 17, 2016 00:16
|
|
|
Anyone interested in making an effort post on why pipelines would be a worse choice than the current rail/truck infrastructure that's currently moving oil westward? Is the problem here that the pipeline would be so efficient that it would essentially be stimulating more oil production in order to fulfill orders through the pipeline itself? If thats the case, whats the current amount of oil being transported via rail and road, and what is the projected oil transportation by pipeline?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Hey guys, just a reminder, if you or family or friends are in Belgium and need emergency consular assistance, the number is 32 (2) 741-0611 for the Embassy, and +1 613 996 8885 for the Emergency Watch and Response Centre in Ottawa. Also e-mail at sos@international.gc.ca. Travel advisory for public areas in Belgium, so try to avoid them if you can. Stay safe, hopefully no one here in the thread was affected.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2016 17:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 09:00 |
|
|
Hal_2005 posted:So, how many of you continue to identify as Liberal voters now that every single one of Justins promises made in October 2015 is now broken ? Uhh, hyperbole much?  https://www.trudeaumetre.ca/
|
|
#
¿
Mar 23, 2016 06:45
|
|