|
Are we seriously in for 4 years of lamenting the socialist utopia of Mulcairistan that could have been, alternating with bitter cynicism?
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
A man who's party was accusing Trudeau of wanting to open brothels and drug dens on every street corner gets upset about negative spin on dead refugees.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 19:33
|
|
|
Ezra Levant is really angry that Trudeau is spending frivolously when there are natives to helpquote:
|
|
#
¿
Oct 27, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
The media likes to pretend that all journalists are cut from the same mold as Woodward and Bernstein, but it's always been beholden to the interests of the owners, and in Canada's case government access. Though I have to say that my impression is that owners are clamping down on dissenting opinions more now-a-days. Every election there's a bigger batch of small scandals around election endorsements by papers.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Update: Updated — @Kady: Stephen Harper hasn't resigned yet, but he intends to on Nov. 4 Drawing it out as long as possible. Ikantski posted:If I were running a paper in the GTA, would I want to compete with the Toronto Star for progressive readers or would I go for the slightly smaller but competition free market of conservative minded GTA readers? You don't need to go after the biggest market to make money, lots of people make money by going after smaller ones that have less competition. That's true, newspaper readers, and especially subscribers, skew much older than the general population, and older people tend conservative. Even the more respectable members of the post family like the National Post or the Ottawa Citizen have editorial pieces aimed at a conservative mindset. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
I might never forgive the Ontario NDP for the stupid strategic move-to-the-centre crap that gave Wynne the majority. Why can't the NDP just stay left like they're supposed to? Early on I though Mulcair was just trying to hedge against any statements that might be spun negatively, but no, it was exactly the same type of balanced-budget neoliberal crap that failed the NDP in Ontario. And both times the Liberals ran on leftist rhetoric and won. Maybe I'll just start voting communist. I'm gonna try and hope that Justin holds to at least some of his promises though. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Oct 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
If that hockey concern trolling was real, I think we should agree to ban sports teams from Canada so that literally the stupidest objection to taxes increasing can't be used anymore.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 31, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
He's the one who sent out a holiday greeting to all the "infidel atheists" in 2013. Sounds like someone should be reported to the barbaric cultural practices hotline.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
MonsieurChoc posted:That's not true though, at all. The Conservatives only had a minority government back then and couldn't enact their entire agenda: what "saved" Canada from the worst of the 2008 crisis were previous policies that the Conservatives didn't have the power to reverse yet. In support of this, it's worth remembering that as Reform Party head Harper argued for bank deregulation and passed some when he came to power in 2006, including things like letting US mortgage insurers into the Canadian market, which paved the way for no down payment, interest only mortgages. That's a direct contributor to our current housing bubble. And people seem to forget that Harper's initial response to the death-spiral of the American economy was to suggest cutting spending, to avoid the dreaded deficit. It's only after the opposition attacked and threatened to bring down the government, which triggered the coalition crisis and the prorogation, that the Conservatives rolled out stimulus measures to maintain their hold on power. E: eliminating the per-vote subsidy was the other big issue at the time, but they got that one in the end. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 09:08 on Nov 3, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 08:51
|
|
|
Stephane Dion is a much better bet.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
zapplez posted:Although Canadians as a whole are far from perfect, we are not even close to one of the more racist countries. We are in the top third of being inclusive to other races, if anything. Thats one of the things I love about this country and our people. Hey, we may have 3 vocal racists out of 100, but compared to other countries, we are doing great. Canadians usually rank pretty high in positive attitude towards immigration compared to other developed countries. That being said Europe is currently voting in a bunch of Nazis in bigger numbers with every election so that's not really that high a bar to top.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
She isn't asking for that though. At most all that's being discussed is flexibility in hours/onsite childcare.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
I'm pretty happy with the appointments, I've gotta say. Ultimately it looks like the 2011 collapse actually proved good for the Liberals. There were a lot less favor appointments this time around than even my hopeful self expected. E: so many people on Facebook whining about "lack of merit". Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:47 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:Justice is generally consider one of the "big four" ministries and given FA went to the senior statesmen and Defence went to an Sikh immigrant I'd consider it a win. First Nations woman too. A really good choice. Gives me hope for the seriousness of the murdered and missing aboriginal women inquiry. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:54 on Nov 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Slightly Toasted posted:Do the people complaining about merit actually have any examples or appointments in particular that they're sour about? I just came back from lunch just now and there were a couple tables talking loudly about how they just don't know about that Trudeau guy that's not how it was done in their day. All of what I've seen is just "why the focus on gender? It should go to the most qualified!" bullshit without specifics.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
I know he's a bit of a Liberal insider but I think McCallum is a good choice for immigration minister. I remember reading this back in June. He does seem to care a lot about immigration issues.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
THC posted:Trudeau promised a small cabinet and ended up naming a still pretty large one. That's worth pointing out. You're just mad that big mean old Mulcair tried to ruin your special day. And/or you'll take any opportunity to reiterate for the hundredth time your dislike of him. Not really, especially not considering his other much more important goal of gender parity and representation of different communities. This attack comes off as petty.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 4, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Sikhs don't have the Varna and explicitly repudiate it but they do have the same traditional ties to the patrilineal jati system that almost all Indian society does, including Muslim and Christian communities. Sikh are supposed to treat all castes equally but in practice intermarriage is still often taboo and there's definitely a hierarchy that exists.They certainly aren't immune to prejudice coming from religion, but it matters a lot more in India than it does here. It's not worse than any of the other dumbshit beliefs of people in Canada. All sides committed atrocities in the partitioning of Punjab, so I guess just blanket ban Indians from immigrating. Germans too, while we're at it. Who knows how many Nazis we've let in on working holidays. Or maybe just ban then from government? I don't know. E: Really the go-to for Sikhs should be the Air India bombing. That seems a lot more relevant to the Canadian context than 70 year old atrocities. Sikhs are one of the oldest communities of Immigrants in Canada after Europeans, and Punjabi is actually the third most spoken language in Canada, so having some representation for them seems like a good reflection of Canadian diversity. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 07:04 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 06:46
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:lol if you think the british crown has any real power over canadian politics. the royal family is kept around so old-stock canadians have something to gossip about whenever one of them has a baby or gets married. Brannock still has a point. Having all the ministers pledge allegiance to the Queen is still this weird subservience to a family that we're supposed to believe is better than us because God said so. I'd rather they pledge their service to the Canadian people. I really don't value "tradition" as a reason to keep the trappings of feudalism all over our society. Plus imagine when Liz finally dies and all our money will have Charles on it. I hope Trudeau gets rid of that stupid "Royal" bullshit for the army at least. E: Forumdammerung appears to be upon us. Stay safe goons. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 07:22 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
Sure, but especially following on the heels of a cabinet where the minister of defense ( and former minister of a bunch of other important departments) has add his qualifications "former head of Canadian Taxpayers Federation and excellent toadie" it comes off as especially disingenuous. These people really do just care about merit when it's not a white guy. E: beaten but I guarantee you not over of the people whining about merit now had anything to say about Harper's rear end-kissong entourage of soulless drones. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:This would be an apt comparison if Kenney had been appointed Minister of Defence in 2007, but you won't convince anyone by saying "This guy who spent eight years as a minister and high profile party leader was unfit to be Minister of Defence." Spending 8 years with Stephen Harper's hand jammed up your rear end in the hopes of eventually replacing him is a form of experience I guess.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:Well if you and every other Republican-oriented Canada are out in BC, you may be in luck! Gross. That's not a reason to keep the monarchy though Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 21:50 on Nov 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 5, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Social dynamics definitely factor into things but Alberta's health minister is making at least $127,000 a year so I don't see what poverty could have to do with her health or weight. And honestly cigarettes, and to a lesser degree alcohol, seem like easy targets because they're socially maligned rather than any sort of concrete argument about relative harms. I mean how hard would it be to tax just sodas? High fructose corn syrup is a huge contributor to diabetes, and you can't pretend that sugary drinks are impossible to substitute for cheaper, even if you don't know how to cook. Especially given this thread's majority stance on marijuana getting all high and mighty about discouraging alcohol or cigarettes seems ridiculous. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
vainman posted:The sin tax isn't up to the Alberta health minister when the price of oil is this low. It has nothing to do with health or addiction and everything to do with collecting money. So then collecting money from sodas and other unhealthy foods would be bad because.....? E: Basically, the social narrative surrounding alcohol and tobacco allows them to be targeted as revenue sources by the government under a fairly paternalistic premise about mitigating harm. The same narrative doesn't exist for sodas, probably because they are far more widely consumed, and therefore the government can't target them as easily for "sin" taxation under the premise of contributing to public health. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 04:50 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Um yes it does. Being obese, or even overweight, is a huge risk factor for several types of cancer and reliably so. This isn't even touching on other extremely crippling and damaging illnesses related to it, like diabetes. And prepared foods are already considered luxuries and subject to normal sales tax. Why shouldn't they be targeted more if revenue is such a concern? I have worked a menial job and depended on prepared foods to see me through, but really even then I had options open to me that were less terrible than a ton of red meat and fat. I ate it because it tasted good and fired the right pathways in my brain, not because it was the only thing available to me. If you want to talk about how companies market foods that have create an addictive effect, that's one thing, but McDonald's is still more like cigarettes than it is groceries when it comes to why people eat it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 04:57
|
|
|
MohawkSatan posted:My problem with the idea of taxing any food as a luxury is this: where is the line drawn. Junk food is unhealthy. When I was little, it was a luxury, because it wasn't something cheap and in bulk. Because when you're poor as hell, that's the food you want. Stuff that is cheap, comes in bulk, and takes no energy to prepare after a long lovely day of working your lovely low paying job. Now compare that to an actual luxury food, something like caviar or foie gras. Nobody who's poor is ever going to manage to pay for the nice poo poo, but they're getting taxed on the cheap poo poo. And conversely, the people with the money to afford the nice things aren't going to give a poo poo about the sin tax on junk food, and they're going to be able to afford the nice stuff. That's literally the argument against all sin taxes and lol if you think taxes on things like alcohol don't have a disproportionate effect on the poor compared to the rich.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 05:07
|
|
|
Listen, we can tax products all we want but we should at least be honest about it and not try to hide behind the idea of "discouraging use for health reasons". If the government seriously wanted to eliminate tobacco consumption it could take far more drastic actions, but much like the lottery, the government is willing to exploit the populace's vices to generate revenue. Fine, whatever, I doubt we'll ever get to a point where people live perfectly health-concious lives and honestly I would rather be able to get drunk once in a while and die sooner than try to maximize my health outcomes and still get cancer because of genetics or environment. But don't pretend like the government isn't happy the cigarette industry, or the alcohol industry, is still running so they can make bank off of it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 05:17
|
|
|
I know Sajjan's father has ties to the WSO, who themselves have made statements supporting the Khalistan separatist movement, but I haven't seen any evidence he is a member or any statements he's made in support of the WSO or terrorist acts. I'd have to see something more concrete before I'd worry about the nefarious terrorist threat in our government. Uppal met with WSO leaders, the WSO aren't a banned organization or anything. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 06:03 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 06:00
|
|
|
These are minister of state positions because they fall beneath other ministries as a sub-portfolio. It's not like they made a choice to have those 5 positions pay less, parliamentary procedure calls for them to get about 20,000 less. Not area any of those positions new creations. Reading the article it sounds like they might just change the procedures? Still this seems pretty weak as an attack. Mulcair's minister for sport wouldn't have been paid any more than Trudeau's. E: Coyne's complaint about men dominating committees is a lot more cogent than this.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Jordan7hm posted:The issue being that the minister of state positions all went to women. No they didn't, minister of sport and minister for the status of women have always been ministers of state. The only times the person occupying them isn't a minister of state is when the minister heading the department gets the sub-agency as well. These subagencies don't exist outside of the larger ministry. They are also traditional positions for new ministers to get, with them getting bigger portfolios during subsequent cabinet reshuffles. A few more major departments heads could have been women, especially since long time mps like Joyce Murray got snubbed, but these positions and all the procedure surrounding them are decades old. The Liberals didn't just decide to make them ministers of state instead of full ones.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 14:53
|
|
|
Coyne's comment about men dominating committees is still a good one though. Committees look like they'll be much more important under this cabinet so that is a way that women will have less influence. E: Here's that piece
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:Did I read this right pm hair force is pro keystone XL? On that note E: beaten
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
Well Keynesian economics like Trudeau ran are what neoliberalism fought against so that's not really true at all. All the parties currently argue from a capitalist understanding of society, the socialism of the NDP being atrophied but still probably the biggest deviation from capitalism. That's a much better statement that trying to characterize every policy favoring business as neoliberalism.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
Deficit spending to boost the economy is literally Keynesian economics 101.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:Are we in a downturn that I missed? We are in a downturn, or were the last time I checked. And arguing that deficit spending will boost job growth like Trudeau did is a Keynesian argument, regardless of the amount, and I doubt the deficit will actually stay at 10 billion. I don't personally believe Keynesianism is good policy and I think progressives hold onto it as a sort of socialism-lite because of the lack of alternatives acceptable by mainstream society. But show me what neoliberal economist ever said not balancing budgets or expanding government spending were acceptable policy choices. E: half of the reason people are even talking about Trudeau abroad is his perceived bucking of the neoliberalism inspired trend of austerity measures as a solution to economic problems. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:34 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
RBC posted:No, that's incorrect. Keynesian economics specifically requires extremely large amounts of stimulus to work. That's part of the model. Running small deficits is not Keynesian economics. No, Keynesian economics is a government focus on boosting aggregate demand when this doesn't equal aggregate supply. It doesn't have to be a massive spending increase to be a Keynesian argument. The rhetoric and arguments Trudeau used were explicitly Keynesian, his claims were that spending would boost job growth and by extension government revenue in the long-term. There's no way that's neoliberal, that's a market distortion to neoliberalism and anathema as an argument to make. But even beyond that, arguing that supporting a trans-border pipeline is somehow "neoliberal" rather than capitalist is extremely dumb. If anybody is expecting any mainstream economists to come make passionate defences of the need to focus on things other than economic growth, like the environment, they're going to be disappointed. Capitalism still remains the main problem in the way of preventing environmental damage when a profit motive exist, and a return to earlier forms of it won't change that. E: You can argue that he's not Keynesian enough to have an effect I guess, but you should at least be aware of the terms you're using. VVV Ahahahaha, hilarious. I'd forgotten about the concert for Bibi. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 18:59 on Nov 6, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 18:56
|
|
|
Seeing as how this is only for draining a sewer pipe for construction work, why can't they just isolate a section and pump it dry? I'll admit I don't know the logistics, but what do they do when they need to replace sewer infrastructure in other places?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 04:16
|
|
|
266,000 trucks is more than just a lot of money. Seeing the full size of the issue in inclined to agreed the dump might be the best option. Even getting the trucks working long enough in series sounds like it would involve shutting down parts of the sewer for unworkably long periods of time.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
BattleMaster posted:There has to be a better way; I'm not really keen on trusting what an economist has to say about it because those fuckers worked out long ago that dumping garbage on public property is cheaper than dealing with it. Like how about treating it and releasing it more gradually, or like not into a big public waterway? Well the drains they are using already drain into the river when the sewers flood. Also it's not McKenna saying it, Environment Canada has looked at it and approved, they just needed the ministerial OK. It still seems less than ideal but the amount being talked about doesn't seem workable, especially since, reading more, it seems some of the structures being dismantled and replaced are in very bad need of work.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 04:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 4, 2024 01:23 |
|
|
"Biosolids" is one of the big things Hong Kong exports to China, where it's used for fertilization. A lot of places in Asia do it, including Japan and South Korea. The only big concerns are potential contamination of food with pathogens, which is also a risk with other types of bio-originating fertilizers, and bio-accumulation of metals like lead leading to higher concentrations in food fertilized with it. E: though the studies I saw seemed to show that heavy metals were still well within safe levels.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 10, 2015 07:01
|
|