ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags Canada elections , Canada politics , Elizabeth May , justin trudeau , Thomas Mulcair

Reply
Old 10th June 2016, 08:00 PM   #161
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Here's an idea guys... accept you lost the argument, lick your wounds, and plan to fight another day. OK?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:14 PM   #162
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
It's good to see vitally important matters are at the top of the agenda for both Parliament and the media!

O Canada bill championed by Mauril Bélanger, MP with ALS, advances to final vote.

Yep, the anthem containing "in all thy sons command" is just outrageous and disgusting and sexist and exclusionary! Change it! CHANGE IT!
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:40 PM   #163
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
I think most people think it's just outdated and stupid. "God keep our land"? Wait until that bill comes out if you really want to see people posture over why progressives are idiots.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 12:47 PM   #164
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
I think most people think it's just outdated and stupid.

[citation needed]

Seriously, are we to believe that supposedly adult persons can't understand that by context the lines mean all Canadians, and not literally 'sons'?


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
"God keep our land"? Wait until that bill comes out if you really want to see people posture over why progressives are idiots.

I'm an atheist, and that line doesn't bother me. I file it under the same category of "doesn't even rise to the level of a tempest in a teacup" as the lines they are trying to change now. It's all posturing nonsense, through and through. It's political theatre.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 01:22 PM   #165
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
[citation needed]
No, there is no citation needed, as there is no poll on this (I guess) and so I'm telling you my opinion. I also think buying a Harley just because you're old and bored is stupid.

Quote:
Seriously, are we to believe that supposedly adult persons can't understand that by context the lines mean all Canadians, and not literally 'sons'?
No. This strikes at the heart of Conservative values. Tradition. You know it's stupid, you just don't like that it's being changed. My thought is, wow it's a stupid *********** song in the first place who cares if someone changes one word? It makes no sense.


Quote:
Im an atheist, and that line doesn't bother me. I file it under the same category of "doesn't even rise to the level of a tempest in a teacup" as the lines they are trying to change now. It's all posturing nonsense, through and through. It's political theatre.
OK I know how you feel but you didn't make a point. My point is that one day it will be taken out or changed. You know this, I know this. It's reality. It means very little politically. So stop trying to make hay, this is my point.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 03:41 PM   #166
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
No, there is no citation needed, as there is no poll on this (I guess) and so I'm telling you my opinion. I also think buying a Harley just because you're old and bored is stupid.

You shouldn't be phrasing things in such a way as to speak for other people then.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
No. This strikes at the heart of Conservative values. Tradition. You know it's stupid, you just don't like that it's being changed. My thought is, wow it's a stupid *********** song in the first place who cares if someone changes one word? It makes no sense.

"Conservative values"—your own bias is showing. You apparently think anyone who objects to changing it is of that stripe. Sorry, you are incorrect. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.

I'll reiterate, since it apparently did not register the first time: Seriously, are we to believe that supposedly adult persons can't understand that by context the lines mean all Canadians, and not literally 'sons'? Have people become that ridiculously oversensitive to language that, by contextual usage, obviously refers to all an not the specific group?

What's next? Maybe we should edit Neil Armstrong's quote from the surface of the Moon. I mean, he said "mankind"! That clearly excludes all the women in the world! Maybe people in offices need to stop referring to mixed groups of people, or a group of women only, as "guys". Oh, wait, that's actually happening.

This is the irrationality that is gripping some people. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad, except that these folks insist on forcing everyone else to adopt their insanity. Sorry, no sale.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
My point is that one day it will be taken out or changed. You know this, I know this. It's reality.

The underlying matter remains: No compelling, evidence-based case has been presented that the change must be made; no compelling, evidence-based case has been presented that the current phrasing does any harm to anyone. Bring me evidence, real evidence, demonstrating harm and the necessity for change, then I am prepared to reconsider changes. Lacking such evidence, I see no reason to kowtow to the language irrationality that grips some.


Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
It means very little politically. So stop trying to make hay, this is my point.

The entire matter is political theatre. It's as much a meaningless, useless gesture as was Trudeau's gender-balanced cabinet. Neither move addresses any real problem, achieves anything of actual substance, and is simply is done to score political points with a certain small (but very loud) constituency.

You may like or at least tolerate that sort of thing, but my patience for it is thoroughly exhausted.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 11th June 2016, 04:03 PM   #167
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
You shouldn't be phrasing things in such a way as to speak for other people then.
I have no idea in regards to what absolutely asinine nonsense you could possibly mean by this babble.

Quote:
"Conservative values"—your own bias is showing. You apparently think anyone who objects to changing it is of that stripe. Sorry, you are incorrect. Do not pass go. Do not collect $200.
What I said aligns with conservatives does actually align with them most of the time. Whether or not you agree that this biases your view means jack **** to me.
Quote:
I'll reiterate, since it apparently did not register the first time: Seriously, are we to believe that supposedly adult persons can't understand that by context the lines mean all Canadians, and not literally 'sons'? Have people become that ridiculously oversensitive to language that, by contextual usage, obviously refers to all an not the specific group?
No one is asking you to think this. What they are saying is that the song isn't perfect. You think the song is perfect?

Quote:
What's next? Maybe we should edit Neil Armstrong's quote from the surface of the Moon. I mean, he said "mankind"! That clearly excludes all the women in the world! Maybe people in offices need to stop referring to mixed groups of people, or a group of women only, as "guys". Oh, wait, that's actually happening.
Are you a Roosh V fan? Sorry I don't think you are I'm just illustrating how stupid that sounds.
Quote:
This is the irrationality that is gripping some people. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad, except that these folks insist on forcing everyone else to adopt their insanity. Sorry, no sale.





The underlying matter remains: No compelling, evidence-based case has been presented that the change must be made; no compelling, evidence-based case has been presented that the current phrasing does any harm to anyone. Bring me evidence, real evidence, demonstrating harm and the necessity for change, then I am prepared to reconsider changes. Lacking such evidence, I see no reason to kowtow to the language irrationality that grips some.





The entire matter is political theatre. It's as much a meaningless, useless gesture as was Trudeau's gender-balanced cabinet. Neither move addresses any real problem, achieves anything of actual substance, and is simply is done to score political points with a certain small (but very loud) constituency.
When the song was written it was a male dominated society. Now it is not that kind of society. Thanks for exposing how seriously you feel about this.
Quote:
You may like or at least tolerate that sort of thing, but my patience for it is thoroughly exhausted.
Well, one of us is going to be bothered by it for the foreseeable future, try winning the election next time.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 12th June 2016, 09:08 AM   #168
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,382
While important business does get discussed and debated in the House of Commons, in my opinion the House is almost as much political theatre as airport passenger screening is security theatre. I'm not an expert on how business in the House is scheduled, but reading between the lines of the news reports on this bill, it appears every member of the House gets an opportunity to introduce and advance legislation. So this is more Bélanger's baby than it is Trudeau's.

I have no idea if the Prime Minister has a veto (or even a say) in the which Private Member's Bills get introduced or moved through the legislative process. I do know a large majority of them fail to become law.
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 02:05 PM   #169
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 6,729
Trudeau seems determined to try and run a country on the principles of Tumblr. He really doesn't have any other foundations for his policies.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 03:51 PM   #170
Blue Mountain
Resident Skeptical Hobbit
 
Blue Mountain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Waging war on woo-woo in Winnipeg
Posts: 5,382
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Trudeau seems determined to try and run a country on the principles of Tumblr. He really doesn't have any other foundations for his policies.
What are the "principles of Tumblr" that you're referring to? And did you have any specific policies in mind when you wrote that?
__________________
The social illusion reigns to-day upon all the heaped-up ruins of the past, and to it belongs the future. The masses have never thirsted after truth. They turn aside from evidence that is not to their taste, preferring to deify error, if error seduce them. Gustav Le Bon, The Crowd, 1895 (from the French)
Canadian or living in Canada? PM me if you want an entry on the list of Canadians on the forum.
Blue Mountain is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 03:57 PM   #171
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Blue Mountain View Post
What are the "principles of Tumblr" that you're referring to? And did you have any specific policies in mind when you wrote that?
Trying to go "it's the current year" and be supreprogressive, for the cameras. In other words, he's all style no substance and as corsair puts it, he acts as though tumblr is a how-to guide for government policy.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 04:00 PM   #172
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Trudeau seems determined to try and run a country on the principles of Tumblr. He really doesn't have any other foundations for his policies.
Trolling. Or, no sense was intended to be made when this post was written.

I also hear that Obama is a Muslim/terrorist sympathizer?

Same thing.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 04:02 PM   #173
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
Trying to go "it's the current year" and be supreprogressive, for the cameras. In other words, he's all style no substance and as corsair puts it, he acts as though tumblr is a how-to guide for government policy.
Saying it's 2016 and not 1956 means we have progressed and certain people are not catching up and that's why corrective measures are being taken. It's actually a polite attack, so you must make fun of it as not meaning what it means. I bet you don't think the natives need a hand up either?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 10:33 PM   #174
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman View Post
In other words, he's all style no substance and as corsair puts it, he acts as though tumblr is a how-to guide for government policy.

Hmmm, I think I've said the former more than the latter. Be that as it may, I have been very consistent on that first opinion right from the moment he was being touted as a possible Liberal leadership candidate: the guy is an empty suit, riding off the coattails of his daddy's name. If he wasn't the son of a famous former Prime Minister he would be a nobody and of no political note whatsoever. He sure as heck wouldn't be Liberal leader.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Last edited by Corsair 115; 15th June 2016 at 10:35 PM.
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th June 2016, 10:43 PM   #175
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Saying it's 2016 and not 1956 means we have progressed and certain people are not catching up and that's why corrective measures are being taken. It's actually a polite attack, so you must make fun of it as not meaning what it means. I bet you don't think the natives need a hand up either?

No, it's garbage. It means nothing, it justifies nothing, it explains nothing; his "Because it's 2015" was deservedly mocked and has deservedly become an internet meme.

He had to resort to that because he couldn't even begin to offer a rational and evidence-based case for a 'gender balanced' cabinet. Actually, it's worse than that: the concept of and argumentation for this sort of (artificially forced) gender balance rests on highly dubious assumptions and reasoning that could easily be described as anti-democratic. It was also pandering of the most obvious kind to a particular electoral demographic.

But then, this ought not to be all that surprising since the guy is an empty suit.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th June 2016, 04:40 AM   #176
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
I think it's obvious that there are many people who could do each job equally well and making it equal is good the same way making it all men would be bad. It's really simple and easy to understand.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 10:37 AM   #177
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
It's a *********** minister's job, not the special forces or firefighters, to put it in a context I'm sure you can appreciate.

Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:37 AM   #178
Niche Geek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
No, it's garbage. It means nothing, it justifies nothing, it explains nothing; his "Because it's 2015" was deservedly mocked and has deservedly become an internet meme.

He had to resort to that because he couldn't even begin to offer a rational and evidence-based case for a 'gender balanced' cabinet. Actually, it's worse than that: the concept of and argumentation for this sort of (artificially forced) gender balance rests on highly dubious assumptions and reasoning that could easily be described as anti-democratic. It was also pandering of the most obvious kind to a particular electoral demographic.

But then, this ought not to be all that surprising since the guy is an empty suit.
1. It's not undemocratic in that they are all elected members and you and I don't vote for Cabinet. Are you arguing that the cabinet must reflect the population of elected MP? If so, how? By race? Age? Gender? Region? Or should the represent the country? Their party?
2. I've seen very little mocking of "it's 2015" in my neck of the woods. In fact it was praised. Reflecting the Canadian population including gender and ethnicity is not a novel concept and is, for a vast number of us, so obvious that a pithy comment is all that is required.
3. Im not sure pandering is the right word when you are talking about at least 51% of the population.
4. How is it artificially forced? Cabinet jobs have, historically, gone to people with no expertise in the area they oversee, people with no experience in that area either. Cabinet has been used to rewarded loyalty or influence a rival camp.
Niche Geek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 03:54 PM   #179
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
I think it's obvious that there are many people who could do each job equally well and making it equal is good the same way making it all men would be bad. It's really simple and easy to understand.

See the bolded in your statement? That's the problem. Trudeau had decided ahead of time that 50% of the cabinet would be women. That is a preordained quota. Quotas are antithetical to a merit-based system.



Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
Are you arguing that the cabinet must reflect the population of elected MP? If so, how? By race? Age? Gender? Region? Or should the represent the country? Their party?

Quite the opposite. I'm arguing the quota system the current PM has opted for is opening the door to that sort of thing, and making it more prominent and important.

Here's the bottom line: please explain logically why 50% of the population being a certain classification mandates that cabinet (or elected officials in general) must also be of that certain classification.

I ask because inherent in any case made that such mandated classification quotas are appropriate is the idea that only members of group X can represent group X, and only members of group Y can represent group Y, and so on. That is a recipe for disaster and chaos.


Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
I've seen very little mocking of "it's 2015" in my neck of the woods. In fact it was praised.

Then you need to branch out and view more than whatever particular narrow segment of the internet you frequent. There's a great big body of ideas and comment out there, many of which challenge long-standing assertions which all too many simply accept without challenge.

As for 'praised', yes, I don't doubt there was praise for it. But that praise comes from folks whose rational and evidence-based thinking would appear to be extremely shallow.


Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
Reflecting the Canadian population including gender and ethnicity is not a novel concept and is, for a vast number of us, so obvious that a pithy comment is all that is required.

Except that this 'reflecting' was done by enforced quota. Quotas are the opposite of merit.


Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
Im not sure pandering is the right word when you are talking about at least 51% of the population.

So, you are assuming all women are in favour of enforced cabinet quotas?

As for the constituency pandered to, it was the loud section of feminism which continually advocates for this sort of forced gender balance.

(There are, for example, several countries which have laws mandating that a specified percentage of corporate boards must be women. In other words, forced quotas. What is interesting to me is why such quotas or general efforts to get more women into a field are only ever for high-status, prestigious jobs, with the three most commonly mentioned being STEM careers, elected officials, and corporate boards. Such actions are hardly ever suggested for lower status, working class jobs, even when such jobs are far more male-dominated than STEM, politics, and company boardrooms. Or, for that matter, neither are forced quotas or campaigns to reduce the number of women in a field suggested for any profession where women currently dominate.)


Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
How is it artificially forced?

Trudeau said it would be so, and it was so! How is that anything other than enforced? He did not say, "We're going to get the best people for the cabinet, and we're going to try out best to try and get


Originally Posted by Niche Geek View Post
Cabinet jobs have, historically, gone to people with no expertise in the area they oversee, people with no experience in that area either. Cabinet has been used to rewarded loyalty or influence a rival camp.

And that only makes it worse. Merit has become a dirty word, it seems. (I remember, years ago, the Liberals criticizing the Conservatives for patronage appointments. Of course, when the Liberals had their hands on the reigns of power, what happened? They made their own bunch of patronage appointments. A pox on them both.)
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Last edited by Corsair 115; 18th June 2016 at 03:56 PM.
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 05:40 PM   #180
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
What you still don't understand is that in a merit-based system with plenty of equally qualified people, it's actually not costing anyone anything to choose gender equal, or geography equal, or life experience (old/young/politician/newbie) there simply isn't a serious argument that they are choosing poorly qualified people to be ministers. You're the one deciding ahead of time that since they are choosing women, they are choosing women over better-qualified men, which is your claim to explain, not mine, good luck with that, pure butt hurt.

Trudeau's statement was wildly admired and reported on throughout the world. That you tried to make an argument from authority that "the internet" made fun of it... ahhhhhh, yeah. Maybe on the kinds of facebook accounts that you are associated with?

hahahahahaha
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th June 2016, 11:21 PM   #181
Niche Geek
Scholar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 61
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
And that only makes it worse. Merit has become a dirty word, it seems.
Up until this post, you've expressed your argument purely in terms of Trudeau. My position is that he hasn't done anything fundamentally different than any of his predecessors, at least not in terms of procedure or merit. On this, it appears, we agree. If you argue that this cabinet makeup was artificially forced then so was every single cabinet that preceded it. Why is it that cabinets have almost inevitably included representation from every region of the country? Is it possible that this, too, was preordained by every incoming prime minister? Is that situation natural or artificial, in your view? What is your evidence that previous cabinets were significantly merit based? Why do you assume that a majority male cabinet is more merit based? What is the evidence for that assertion?

As for your suggesting that I need to branch out where I read, that's rather entertaining given that your premise was the the 2015 quip was condemned. My whole point was that the condemnation was far from universal.
Niche Geek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 08:55 AM   #182
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
Quote:
I'm not an expert on how business in the House is scheduled, but reading between the lines of the news reports on this bill, it appears every member of the House gets an opportunity to introduce and advance legislation. So this is more Bélanger's baby than it is Trudeau's.

I have no idea if the Prime Minister has a veto (or even a say) in the which Private Member's Bills get introduced or moved through the legislative process. I do know a large majority of them fail to become law.
I believe any private member can introduce a bill. Which ones get selected for debate and voting is done both randomly, and via committee. (Since the government does have a majority in the commons, I suspect they also have a majority on the committees that decide which bills are worthy of voting.) So it may be Belanger's baby, but Trudeau does seem to be forcing things along.

There is one other issue: one of the rules is that the member who proposed the bill has to be present at the time of the vote. That's one of the reasons the vote is being rushed (before his health means he can't attend the commons anymore.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privat...7s_bill#Canada

One of the accusations by the conservatives is that the bill is being rushed through parliament without any real consultation. (Changing the anthem certainly wasn't an election issue, at least not that I'm aware of, and they haven't really held any hearings to get input from non-politicians.) After all, wasn't that supposed to be one of the goals of the Liberals? Be more open? Even if a person has no problem with a change to the anthem, it would still be a good idea to discuss it with the (potentially) millions of Canadians who might want to have a say in it.

So you get a case of trying to decide what is more important: trying to actually run an open government, or giving Belanger a "legacy".

I actually live in the riding that Belanger represents. For the most part, I consider him a bench-warmer (apart from about 30 seconds that he spent in the cabinet of Paul Martin). No major screw-ups, but then nothing to get excited about either. He represents probably the safest Liberal seat in the country. He certainly doesn't deserve to get ALS, but perhaps if they were going to give him a legacy, they should consider changing the rules of the commons to loosen up attendance requirements for the votes.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 09:08 AM   #183
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
Looks like we may be hit with either a Canada post lockout or strike.

From: https://www.thestar.com/business/201...nion-says.html
Canada Post filed notices of dispute on Monday with the minister of labour, requesting conciliation help in negotiations — a move which essentially starts the clock on a countdown to a strike or lockout....The union estimates a legal strike or lockout date could come in early July.But Canada Post spokesman Jon Hamilton said negotiations began late last year with little progress being made on key issues.

From the looks of things, Canada Post wants to take steps to cut costs. The Unions on the other hand seem to be arguing that Canada Post should expand its business into things like banking in order to give them what they want.

A few notes:
- I have very little sympathy for the Liberals if they have to deal with a strike. The Liberals have been in bed with the Unions since long before the last election, and they made restoration of Canada Post home delivery an election issue. Now they're finding that, after being all buddy-buddy with unions, they find that now they have to pay the piper.

- This has the possibility of spectacularly backfiring on the Liberals, Canada Post, and the unions. Mail delivery has already been on the decline for years, and a strike or lockout will do a lot to show Canada Post's irrelevance in many people's lives.

I hope a lockout and/or strike does happen. I hope the unions get burnt big time. I hope Canada post walks away with a business plan that works, and concessions from the union that may actually keep the post office profitable.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st June 2016, 06:27 PM   #184
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,140
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
This is the irrationality that is gripping some people. I suppose it wouldn't be so bad, except that these folks insist on forcing everyone else to adopt their insanity. Sorry, no sale.
Seems far more irrational to get this worked up over the issue. Making a change would apparently make some people happy and give a more direct sense of inclusion. While at the same time doing no harm to anyone.

Pretending that having the words changed equates to a forcing of your opinion to be changed is downright silly. You would still be perfectly capable of maintaining whatever opinion you choose to have no matter what string of words happens to be written down somewhere for the anthem.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2016, 10:12 AM   #185
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Saw this today at CBC News: Lifting Mexican visa rules runs counter to official advice.

Quote:
The Canadian government is proceeding with a campaign promise to lift the visa requirement for Mexican travellers on Dec. 1, even though public servants are warning the move comes with significant risks.

Information obtained by CBC News shows government officials have cautioned Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government about proceeding ahead of a thorough review.

It'll be interesting to see how this pans out.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd June 2016, 11:46 AM   #186
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
Quote:
The Canadian government is proceeding with a campaign promise to lift the visa requirement for Mexican travellers on Dec. 1, even though public servants are warning the move comes with significant risks.
Bah... what to public servants know anyways?

They should bring in a law forbidding them to talk to the press.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2016, 08:39 PM   #187
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,311
Am I right that Parliament is not in session right now, to return in some weeks/months?
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 5th August 2016, 09:49 PM   #188
Steve
Illuminator
 
Steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 3,667
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
Am I right that Parliament is not in session right now, to return in some weeks/months?
Yes, until Sept 15
__________________
Caption from and old New Yorker cartoon - Why am I shouting? Because I'm wrong!"
Steve is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 6th August 2016, 01:30 AM   #189
NWO Sentryman
Proud NWO Gatekeeper
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Quantum Gate to the NWO
Posts: 6,729
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
Bah... what to public servants know anyways?

They should bring in a law forbidding them to talk to the press.
Yeah, it's the current year, we shouldn't have to listen to public servants and experts.
__________________
If I now say "dominoes", you won't think "pizza". Will you? - FireGarden on the Middle East
NWO Sentryman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2016, 08:34 AM   #190
Delvo
الشيطان الأبيض
 
Delvo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 7,311
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
There are sources suggesting that the Liberal cabinet has decided to purchase the F18 Super Hornet. (However, they would label it an "interim measure" in order to get around the fact that they haven't had any sort of competition.)...

We need new fighters desperately, but the current CF18s have enough years on them to allow us to run a proper competition...

Then there is the double standard... Conservatives sole-source F35=bad, Liberals sole-source F18=good.

It should be pointed out that this is not official yet. I suspect its just a "trial balloon", and many in the media who had supported the Liberals could turn on them, which might change their minds.

Lastly, the Liberals missed a payment to stay a member of the F35 partnership. (This allows Canada to bid on various contracts related to the F35 construction.)
This is the subject that made me think about Parliament being out of session right now. The last few weeks/months have been an interesting time in F-35 news, none of it the kind of "interesting" that the anti-F-35 crowd wanted, so these things have sort of piled up waiting for Canada's government to come back and answer...
  • USAF declared IOC (initial operational capability, meaning they could be sent to war at any time now) for its first F-35A squadron a few days ago. Depending on how you read previous statements about when that was going to happen, that's either in the first couple of days of a five-month window, or a couple of months ahead of schedule. USMC went first a year ago with F-35B and an earlier version of the software, so that's two out of three models (including the one Canada would get) for two out of three American services. (The Navy is last in line because model C has the smallest planned quantity and they have the youngest current air fleet to replace; the plane is up to their standards already but there aren't enough of them yet.) By the time Parliament is back, USMC might have added another operational squadron. And, although most are still tied up (for now) in the final steps of the most extensive "testing" program the world has ever seen, there are now more F-35s than F-22s, which have been operational for a decade. Remember how one of the arguments against F-35 was that it was so "delayed" (by Congress, not by problems with the plane) that the time it would be ready, just a few more years in the future back then, would somehow never ever ever come? That would be about now.
  • There have been a series of several reports this summer on different kinds of training exercises in which no type of ground-based or airborne opposition has been able to scratch F-35s' impunity to complete missions faster, more accurately, and with fewer planes in the air than earlier types, all with zero losses, as if the opposing team weren't even there. They're starting to try to find ways to rig training missions against them, such as having them fly with transponders/beacons on or unnecessarily carry bombs externally or fly with half of the group unarmed, just to come up with some scenario that might really challenge them at all, and they're still making it look too easy. The one other type of plane that's most often compared with it by those with experience in these things is F-22, the only other plane that's ever made its predecessors look so utterly helpless (and for generally the same reasons). That's not bad for a plane that "doesn't work and isn't anywhere near working".
  • A recent pilot survey showed an unprecedented level of willingness/eagerness to switch over to the new plane. (Pilots tend to be prone to first-love syndrome, preferring to stick to what they've known the longest, until the reasons in favor of switching get overwhelming.)
  • Someone in Canada's government ended up paying their F-35 consortium dues in the last few weeks. Why, after the promise not to even consider buying the plane?

Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
We need new fighters desperately, but the current CF18s have enough years on them to allow us to run a proper competition.
Canada has already done comparative evaluations, with the same obvious result that all of their plane-shopping allies got, before declaring that their own conclusion (along with everyone else's) doesn't count and the obvious winner was the one and only plane they would definitely not choose. That puts any new competition they could do now in a rather unusual perspective: because everyone already knows that there is only one possible winner, their three choices are to either get that plane anyway after saying they wouldn't, avoid it by not running a competition after saying they would, or run a competition that still avoids it by being obviously staged for that goal and thus not really a competition at all anyway (although the bill would still look about the same as the bill for a real one). They've managed to eliminate even the possibility of taking any course of action that wouldn't be flamboyantly dishonest.

Last edited by Delvo; 7th August 2016 at 08:39 AM.
Delvo is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2016, 04:25 PM   #191
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
There have been a series of several reports this summer on different kinds of training exercises in which no type of ground-based or airborne opposition has been able to scratch F-35s' impunity to complete missions faster, more accurately, and with fewer planes in the air than earlier types, all with zero losses, as if the opposing team weren't even there. They're starting to try to find ways to rig training missions against them, such as having them fly with transponders/beacons on or unnecessarily carry bombs externally or fly with half of the group unarmed, just to come up with some scenario that might really challenge them at all, and they're still making it look too easy. The one other type of plane that's most often compared with it by those with experience in these things is F-22, the only other plane that's ever made its predecessors look so utterly helpless (and for generally the same reasons). That's not bad for a plane that "doesn't work and isn't anywhere near working".

The only caveat I would add to the above is that is peace time training exercises. The history of weapons development shows that, sometimes, things that worked great in peace time testing don't perform quite as well in actual combat. See, for example, the torpedoes with which USN submarines entered WWII.

It may well be that the F-35 in actual combat will be as dominant as it was in peace time training exercises. But it's possible combat conditions might produce less dominant results.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th August 2016, 08:04 PM   #192
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
Originally Posted by Delvo View Post
This is the subject that made me think about Parliament being out of session right now. The last few weeks/months have been an interesting time in F-35 news, none of it the kind of "interesting" that the anti-F-35 crowd wanted, so these things have sort of piled up waiting for Canada's government to come back and answer...

* USAF declared IOC (initial operational capability, meaning they could be sent to war at any time now) for its first F-35A squadron a few days ago.
But, but, Trudeau said the plane was "Far from Working"! How can it be considered combat-ready if Trudeau himself said that it is far from working. He is our prime minister after all, with a distinguished career as a teacher and motivation speaker, perfect background to be making judgement on the F35.

Quote:
* There have been a series of several reports this summer on different kinds of training exercises in which no type of ground-based or airborne opposition has been able to scratch F-35s' impunity to complete missions faster, more accurately, and with fewer planes in the air than earlier types, all with zero losses, as if the opposing team weren't even there. They're starting to try to find ways to rig training missions against them, such as having them fly with transponders/beacons on...
See? That proves that the plane is not ready, since it can't even be tested properly.

Quote:
* Someone in Canada's government ended up paying their F-35 consortium dues in the last few weeks. Why, after the promise not to even consider buying the plane?
Well, paying into the consortium does make some economic sense... With our latest payment of $33 million, we have payed a total of around $300 million. However, Canadian companies have earned contracts totaling over $800 million building various components for the plane.

The problem is what happens if Canada ends up not buying the plane in the long run.... Countries like Denmark and the U.K. (who are both consortium members AND who have purchased the plane) may get a bit peeved that a non-customer is getting these contracts. We may find ourselves kicked out of the consortium.

Quote:
Canada has already done comparative evaluations, with the same obvious result that all of their plane-shopping allies got, before declaring that their own conclusion (along with everyone else's) doesn't count and the obvious winner was the one and only plane they would definitely not choose.
We may have done some comparisons, but it wasn't exactly a full-scale competition. But, the F35 is such an obvious choice that the various parties should have put politics behind them and said "you know what? We don't need to waste time and money".

Quote:
That puts any new competition they could do now in a rather unusual perspective: because everyone already knows that there is only one possible winner, their three choices are to either get that plane anyway after saying they wouldn't, avoid it by not running a competition after saying they would, or run a competition that still avoids it by being obviously staged for that goal and thus not really a competition at all anyway (although the bill would still look about the same as the bill for a real one). They've managed to eliminate even the possibility of taking any course of action that wouldn't be flamboyantly dishonest.
Yup, the liberals have certainly stuck their foot in poop, and have no way to clean it off. It should have been obvious to anyone that this was going to be a replay of the Sea King/EH101 fiasco.

Frankly, I have absolutely no sympathy for the Liberals over this matter. They were the ones playing politics, going way back to the whole contempt of parliament "gotcha". And now its blowing up in their face.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2016, 03:00 PM   #193
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Prime Minister Trudeau decides to gender something that doesn't need to be:

Justin Trudeau joins gender inequality campaign, says ‘poverty is sexist’
Trudeau endorses Bono’s ONE campaign; ‘I wholeheartedly agree: poverty is sexist’

That's right, everyone, poverty is sexist! All those homeless men—who, incidentally, comprise the large majority of the unsheltered homeless—evidently don't exist...or are victims of The Partiarchy...or something...
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th August 2016, 03:03 PM   #194
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307


That's the most poorly argued hack political puke I've seen in awhile, thanks for the laugh, made my day.

Is this the kind of **** you gripe about at the coffee shop out in Etobicoke or whatever? I gotta get out there, this is funny stuff.

Last edited by Joey McGee; 27th August 2016 at 03:04 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th August 2016, 10:29 AM   #195
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
[quote=Joey McGee;11461994]
Quote:
That's right, everyone, poverty is sexist! All those homeless men—who, incidentally, comprise the large majority of the unsheltered homeless—evidently don't exist...or are victims of The Partiarchy...or something... [/quiote]
That's the most poorly argued hack political puke I've seen in awhile, thanks for the laugh, made my day.
I think the problem is that Trudeau/Bono were talking about poverty on a global scale (where it may be true that women suffer with poverty disproportionately), whereas Corsair was concentrating more on the Canadian experience. (Roughly 3/4s of the homeless in Canada are men.)

http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp...6/SOHC2103.pdf
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th August 2016, 09:28 AM   #196
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,860
A few developments with our federal government:

First of all, Trudeau has promised ~600 troops to be used on U.N. "Peacekeeping" missions. However, the government hasn't yet decided where they will be deployed or what the mission will be.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...ticle31585520/

Now, I have no problem with Canada committing troops to help stabilize some of he troubled spots in the world. (We are a relatively prosperous country, and as such we should be willing to contribute.) There are a couple of issues though:

- Trudeau contributed troops/equipment, but our military is still in urgent need of new equipment. I really wish they would have put more money into military procurement in their first budget.

- I am also concerned that they made the announcement of troops before they actually knew where they would be deployed. Seems a little... premature.

- I wonder how many of the anti-Conservatives feel about Trudeau's plans. After all, the conservative's military plans were regularly criticized by many... I remember a thread here discussing the F35, and the purchased was contemned because "We can do more good giving non-military aid". Well, here's Trudeau, about to spend hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars and risk Canadian lives all to help people in far-off lands. Basically the type of things the conservatives were criticized for.

In other developments... looks like a few minor spending scandals have popped up...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/phil...robe-1.3732575

- It was found Health Minister Jane Philpott spent ~$7000 on luxury car services during a few visits to the Toronto/Hamilton area, as well as ~$500 on airport VIP services. (She has said she will pay back the airport VIP services, but only after it was discovered)

- Environment minister Catherine MacKenna hired ~$6000 to hire a professional photographer to take pictures at a conference in France. (The conservatives also spent money to have photographers on hand when they were in power, although MacKenna's spending seems to have outstripped that of the conservatives when considered on a per-event basis.)
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2016, 04:11 AM   #197
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
[quote=Segnosaur;11464605]
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post

I think the problem is that Trudeau/Bono were talking about poverty on a global scale (where it may be true that women suffer with poverty disproportionately), whereas Corsair was concentrating more on the Canadian experience. (Roughly 3/4s of the homeless in Canada are men.)

http://www.wellesleyinstitute.com/wp...6/SOHC2103.pdf
Yeah the problem is that they didn't take enough time to think about that, so eager was their desire to troll the liberals on JREF.

It's like when you try too hard to fart and a poop comes out... who's laughing now?
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2016, 06:33 PM   #198
Corsair 115
Penultimate Amazing
 
Corsair 115's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
Originally Posted by Joey McGee View Post
Yeah the problem is that they didn't take enough time to think about that, so eager was their desire to troll the liberals on JREF.

Stupid comment by Trudeau is still stupid. If only he had had the presence of mind to use proper qualifications in his statement.

And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a condition is sexist. People? Sure. That I can see. One person can hold a sexist attitude towards another. But a condition? Is it sexist in the way air conditioning and the dictionary is sexist? Or might it be the word 'sexist' has been so overused that it's meaning has been watered down to pointlessness?

Is basic logic and reason dead? It would seem so.

ETA: It's also cute how you assume that someone criticizing Trudeau = someone who's not a liberal. There's your first problem. You seem to think liberal/left is a tiny, narrow little thing with only one precise, rigid point of view.

It isn't.
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and
one which we intend to win."

Last edited by Corsair 115; 31st August 2016 at 06:37 PM.
Corsair 115 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2016, 07:28 PM   #199
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Originally Posted by Corsair 115 View Post
Stupid comment by Trudeau is still stupid. If only he had had the presence of mind to use proper qualifications in his statement.
lol, with that kind of restriction you could criticize any statement or action for what it did not address such is the endlessness of concepts and relations... priceless.

Quote:
And I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how a condition is sexist. People? Sure. That I can see. One person can hold a sexist attitude towards another. But a condition? Is it sexist in the way air conditioning and the dictionary is sexist? Or might it be the word 'sexist' has been so overused that it's meaning has been watered down to pointlessness?
Well, language is actually what people understand, and most people understand that it means that sexism causes poverty. This is a great time to remember the words Christopher Hitchens said about the cure for poverty...

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Quote:
Is basic logic and reason dead? It would seem so.
Pedantic nonsense has never been part of the philosophical tradition.

Quote:
ETA: It's also cute how you assume that someone criticizing Trudeau = someone who's not a liberal. There's your first problem. You seem to think liberal/left is a tiny, narrow little thing with only one precise, rigid point of view.
Yeah you probably don't have a problem with sex education or hang out in etobicoke, I'm joking about stereotypes, I know and am related to lots of other human beings. The only people I know who fit stereotypes are politicians, as that's their job.

Quote:
It isn't.
Wow you schooled me good!
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st August 2016, 09:09 PM   #200
Civet
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 1,598
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
- It was found Health Minister Jane Philpott spent ~$7000 on luxury car services during a few visits to the Toronto/Hamilton area, as well as ~$500 on airport VIP services. (She has said she will pay back the airport VIP services, but only after it was discovered)
It also came out that the car service was owned by a Liberal campaign volunteer and that the fee was well above the rate charged by other companies for similar services.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/...-too-much.html

Brought comparisons to Bev Odas orange juice and limos. Seems like a stupid way to generate a scandal. If I ever get elected to public office, I promise that all of my scandals will involve weird sex, cocaine or truly vast amounts of money.
Civet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Non-USA & General Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.