Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

[Canada] Politics of the Democratic Friedmanite Republic of the Government of Harper

12357100

Posts

  • blkmageblkmage Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    If it happens, it would make those 'liberals gonna tax your ipods' ads even more depressing.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I said it fails a lot. As in, every year, there are a lot of people who despite their best efforts become pregnant. We can't just look at this as percentages, we need to look at this as numbers. Every year there are about 100,000 abortions in Canada, we need to consider that putting barriers between women and abortion means 100,000 people being forced into poverty to satisfy some religious bigots.

  • The EnderThe Ender Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I said it fails a lot. As in, every year, there are a lot of people who despite their best efforts become pregnant. We can't just look at this as percentages, we need to look at this as numbers. Every year there are about 100,000 abortions in Canada, we need to consider that putting barriers between women and abortion means 100,000 people being forced into poverty to satisfy some religious bigots.

    I agree, but just remember that 100,000 abortions is quite different from 100,000 unwanted pregnancies and even more different yet from 100,000 instances where a contraceptive product failed it's user.

    Saying that, for example, condoms 'fail a lot' can give the impression that there is no point in bothering to put one on (which is, I think, a pretty terrible attitude to encourage). It's also part of the message conveyed by fanatics for why schools should not teach anything as part of a sex ed curriculum other than 'don't have sex'.

    TOG Solid wrote:
    If that guy wasn't white he would have gotten popped by so many tasers simultaneously that Marvel could use that as the new origin for Electro.
  • CorporateGoonCorporateGoon Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    Jean wrote: »
    Vote Compass results, riding per riding

    Interesting how differently Québec and the rest of the country think on most issues. In a few topics, Québec actually bring the national average to the right mainly when it comes to economic relationships with the US and healthcare.
    The results for "Quebec should become an independent state" are unsurprising but they still made me laugh.

    EDIT: and the results for gay marriage... I did not expect that.

    EDIT2: "Possession of marijuana should be a criminal offence" is just sad :(

    But "Speaking English or French should be a requirement for immigration to Canada" -- funny to see Québec and Alberta together against the rest of Canada :D

    It's not the best page. The map of Canada shows relative frequencies rather than absolute frequencies, so it can be confusing. The graph a little farther down the page is a bit better, but raw numbers would've been nice. People are in favour of legal weed, it's just that the hippies in BC are so heavily in favour that it skews the frequency map.

  • OtarOtar Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    The Ender wrote: »
    Underlined: I'm inclined to believe that this is generally the case, and your claim doesn't strike me as implausible, but you put it in such absolute terms that I can't help but ask for a source.

    The 19th Edition of Robert A. Hatcher's Contraceptive Technology.


    Here's the table the author's have on their website for contraceptive effectiveness:

    http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html


    If a woman takes pills as directed on the packaging, her chance of an unwanted pregnancy in a year is 0.3%.

    Fair enough. I was thrown off because you said, "The only documented cases of pills not working were the result of user negligence," and I didn't know if it was hyperbole or excessively absolute.
    Calling that 'a lot of failure' on the part of the product is a gross distortion of the truth.

    But it isn't. It's vague, which was my point. You were reading Robman to mean "high rate of failure," and I'm saying I wasn't certain that's what he meant. Three in a thousand, given the number of users, could easily be considered "a lot." It could also be fairly described as "not much at all." Either way, I find it sufficient to necessitate having abortion as an option.

    Three in a thousand per year of use, I dunno a lot of people that would call that a lot.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Otar wrote: »
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    But it isn't. It's vague, which was my point. You were reading Robman to mean "high rate of failure," and I'm saying I wasn't certain that's what he meant. Three in a thousand, given the number of users, could easily be considered "a lot." It could also be fairly described as "not much at all." Either way, I find it sufficient to necessitate having abortion as an option.

    Three in a thousand per year of use, I dunno a lot of people that would call that a lot.

    If a hundred thousand people use a given contraceptive, that's three hundred unwanted pregnancies per year. I don't know a lot of people who wouldn't call that a lot. My point was that "a lot" is a vague, subjective term and isn't a statement about proportion or rates.

    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • OtarOtar Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    Otar wrote: »
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    But it isn't. It's vague, which was my point. You were reading Robman to mean "high rate of failure," and I'm saying I wasn't certain that's what he meant. Three in a thousand, given the number of users, could easily be considered "a lot." It could also be fairly described as "not much at all." Either way, I find it sufficient to necessitate having abortion as an option.

    Three in a thousand per year of use, I dunno a lot of people that would call that a lot.

    If a hundred thousand people use a given contraceptive, that's three hundred unwanted pregnancies per year. I don't know a lot of people who wouldn't call that a lot. My point was that "a lot" is a vague, subjective term and isn't a statement about proportion or rates.

    It really isn't a lot at all particularly when you take into account the ~17% of female users who also have used emergency contraception, probably significantly reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • Torso BoyTorso Boy Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Otar wrote: »
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    Otar wrote: »
    Torso Boy wrote: »
    But it isn't. It's vague, which was my point. You were reading Robman to mean "high rate of failure," and I'm saying I wasn't certain that's what he meant. Three in a thousand, given the number of users, could easily be considered "a lot." It could also be fairly described as "not much at all." Either way, I find it sufficient to necessitate having abortion as an option.

    Three in a thousand per year of use, I dunno a lot of people that would call that a lot.

    If a hundred thousand people use a given contraceptive, that's three hundred unwanted pregnancies per year. I don't know a lot of people who wouldn't call that a lot. My point was that "a lot" is a vague, subjective term and isn't a statement about proportion or rates.

    It really isn't a lot at all particularly when you take into account the ~17% of female users who also have used emergency contraception, probably significantly reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

    I don't know how to reply because I'm not certain what you think I'm arguing.

    Rent wrote: »
    So that's what having no idea what you are talking about looks like
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Azio wrote: »
    The Conservatives have already started breaking promises and they haven't even named their cabinet yet.

    Remember how they said they would sort out the budget by 2015? I guess they're not so sure about that anymore.
    With the election results barely a week old, Conservatives are muddying the waters around a central – and surprising – campaign pledge.

    The revised 2011 budget that the government will present next month will not show a surplus by 2014-15 as promised in black and white in the Conservative campaign platform, even though the government insists it still intends to deliver on the election promise.

    I just got back from Montreal, but I feel compelled to note...

    I told you so.


    This does clarify a fair bit though. Now I know that it's not that they've been incompetent in constantly predicting the end of the deficit (only for it to never happen), but that they've been doing it intentionally.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The prison thing is going to cause untold misery at the provincial level. That's one of those cool things where the government gets to say "build this shit, and pay for it" to the provinces.

    Wonder if they're going to take the federal government to court over that.

  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The Ender wrote: »
    I think it's rather silly you act like user error somehow doesn't count.

    If user error makes birth control fail and user error is common, then birth control commonly fails.

    Except:

    A) User error is not common

    B) It's ridiculous to claim that improper use of a product makes the product defective.
    Underlined: I'm inclined to believe that this is generally the case, and your claim doesn't strike me as implausible, but you put it in such absolute terms that I can't help but ask for a source.

    The 19th Edition of Robert A. Hatcher's Contraceptive Technology.


    Here's the table the author's have on their website for contraceptive effectiveness:

    http://www.contraceptivetechnology.org/table.html


    If a woman takes pills as directed on the packaging, her chance of an unwanted pregnancy in a year is 0.3%.

    Calling that 'a lot of failure' on the part of the product is a gross distortion of the truth.

    Annnd... how many Canadian women have sex in a year? 33 739 900 Canadians, let's say half are women, let's say half are breeding age, let's say half are sexually active, let's say they're all on birth control pills... 12 652 unintended pregnancies per year.


    * Actually, only ~half of Canadian women are using oral contraceptives: http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/publicat/whsr-rssf/chap_24-eng.php

    It also seems I'm BADLY lowballing the number:
    The rate of teenage pregnancy in Canada remains high. A Statistics Canada report estimated that in 1997 the number of women aged 15 to 19 who had given birth was 19,724, and the number who had had an induced abortion was 21,233 [16]. Although this is a multi-faceted issue, comprehensive sexual health promotion and education would go a long way towards reducing unintended pregnancies in teenagers.

    Also, there's a known gap between reported contraceptive use in young adults, and actual consistent contraceptive use, as well as significantly lower rates of use of the more effective contraceptives due to access, price, awareness and risk issues.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I wonder if old Jacky-boy will still be pushing as hard for PR given that with a pure PR system he'd lose about 10 seats at this point.

  • CanadianWolverineCanadianWolverine Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I think he would, his party has shown itself willing to seriously consider Coalitions with other parties before and that would pretty much be the norm under just about any variant of Proportional Representation.

    steam_sig.png
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    While we definitely need electoral reform, I can't see PR working for something like the house of commons. Preferential voting within each riding seems like the way to go.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    I think he would, his party has shown itself willing to seriously consider Coalitions with other parties before and that would pretty much be the norm under just about any variant of Proportional Representation.

    He's always stood to gain seats in a PR system. Now, he would lose seats and would be forced into a mixed cabinet with the Liberals - promising them rather choice positions in order to woo them from the conservatives - rather then being able to carry on the Jack Layton show.

    If the current numbers hold, Layton is the strongest opposition that a government has faced in quite some time. They're poised to strike into Ontario and the Atlantic provinces from their Quebec stronghold. I'm sure Layton will talk real big about PR and STV. I'm also pretty sure he's a savvy politician who won't endanger his best chance at a fancy house on Sussex.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    I think he would, his party has shown itself willing to seriously consider Coalitions with other parties before and that would pretty much be the norm under just about any variant of Proportional Representation.

    He's always stood to gain seats in a PR system. Now, he would lose seats and would be forced into a mixed cabinet with the Liberals - promising them rather choice positions in order to woo them from the conservatives - rather then being able to carry on the Jack Layton show.

    If the current numbers hold, Layton is the strongest opposition that a government has faced in quite some time. They're poised to strike into Ontario and the Atlantic provinces from their Quebec stronghold. I'm sure Layton will talk real big about PR and STV. I'm also pretty sure he's a savvy politician who won't endanger his best chance at a fancy house on Sussex.

    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.

  • saggiosaggio Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Robman wrote: »
    I think he would, his party has shown itself willing to seriously consider Coalitions with other parties before and that would pretty much be the norm under just about any variant of Proportional Representation.

    He's always stood to gain seats in a PR system. Now, he would lose seats and would be forced into a mixed cabinet with the Liberals - promising them rather choice positions in order to woo them from the conservatives - rather then being able to carry on the Jack Layton show.

    If the current numbers hold, Layton is the strongest opposition that a government has faced in quite some time. They're poised to strike into Ontario and the Atlantic provinces from their Quebec stronghold. I'm sure Layton will talk real big about PR and STV. I'm also pretty sure he's a savvy politician who won't endanger his best chance at a fancy house on Sussex.

    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.

    So does that mean they are more or less likely to vote for Bob Rae and his new party?

    3DS: 0232-9436-6893
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    On the other hand, a lot of people have been voting Liberal because they are the only reasonable option to make a government. The NDP's performance shatters this perception. If Jack does well over the next few years to keep or increase his party's momentum, then Liberal voters might flock to the NDP across Canada much as they (and Bloc voters) did in Québec. I'm talking about an end to vote splitting and Conservatives winning thanks to a divided left.

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.
    I really wish people realized that federal and provincial parties with the same name have nothing in common except that name.

    EDIT: Hell, Bob Rae left the provincial NDP to join the federal Liberals, and Jean Charest left the federal Conservatives to join the provincial Liberals. How much more obvious can it get for people?

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.
    I really wish people realized that federal and provincial parties with the same name have nothing in common except that name.

    EDIT: Hell, Bob Rae left the provincial NDP to join the federal Liberals, and Jean Charest left the federal Conservatives to join the provincial Liberals. How much more obvious can it get for people?

    Ontarians have shitty-ass memories, because we'll still vote PC though for some reason, when Mike Harris EIGHT years were way worse than Rae's four.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.
    I really wish people realized that federal and provincial parties with the same name have nothing in common except that name.

    EDIT: Hell, Bob Rae left the provincial NDP to join the federal Liberals, and Jean Charest left the federal Conservatives to join the provincial Liberals. How much more obvious can it get for people?

    Oh I know. (And I didn't even think the NDP were that terrible)

    But the memory remains it seems. As does the confusion. Doesn't BC have the same issue with the provincial Liberals?


    And between Bob Rae and the NDP, I'd predict Ontarians go Conservative.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    Ontarians have shitty-ass memories, because we'll still vote PC though for some reason, when Mike Harris EIGHT years were way worse than Rae's four.

    I think that depends who you were.

    Being in school in Toronto, Harris was despised. I don't think it's so true outside Toronto though.

  • RichyRichy Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    shryke wrote: »
    And between Bob Rae and the NDP, I'd predict Ontarians go Conservative.

    That's not much of a prediction -- they already went Conservative in the Federal and Municipal (Rob Ford) levels. The provincial seems like a given now.

    I'd say northern ontario should split and join Manitoba, but they're conservative too. Well, we have a large Francophone population... maybe we should split and join Québec?

    RichyFlag.gifsig.gif
  • TubularLuggageTubularLuggage Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.
    I really wish people realized that federal and provincial parties with the same name have nothing in common except that name.

    EDIT: Hell, Bob Rae left the provincial NDP to join the federal Liberals, and Jean Charest left the federal Conservatives to join the provincial Liberals. How much more obvious can it get for people?

    This. For example, federally, Nova Scotia tends to divide its ridings between the Liberals and Conservatives, including this time around, with the NDP coming in third. In our last provincial election, we ended up with an NDP majority. The two have little bearing on each other.

  • blkmageblkmage Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Actually, I think the NDP is the only party that does have formal links between its provincial and federal parties.

    I think that even though Jack and the NDP stands to lose seats from the outcome of this election, they still have enough incentive to push for PR. I don't think that their hold on Quebec is something they can really count on yet, which makes relying on those seats while they go for gains somewhere else pretty risky. It's not like the NDP have benefited from vote splitting to the degree that the Liberals did to get a bunch of majorities.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Sheila Fraser is retiring, she was the Auditor-General that broke the sponsorship scandal and has the G8/G20 report written up that could be the conservative ad-scam. Who the fuck is he going to appoint?

    Kevin Page is probably the most effective opposition in the entire House. On the other hand Harper stuffed the Senate with Conservative party hacks who killed a bill that passed parliament for the first time in nearly a century.

  • psyck0psyck0 Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    Richy wrote: »
    shryke wrote: »
    Are they?

    Ontario, as a whole, does not havde fond memories of the NDP.
    I really wish people realized that federal and provincial parties with the same name have nothing in common except that name.

    EDIT: Hell, Bob Rae left the provincial NDP to join the federal Liberals, and Jean Charest left the federal Conservatives to join the provincial Liberals. How much more obvious can it get for people?

    Ontarians have shitty-ass memories, because we'll still vote PC though for some reason, when Mike Harris EIGHT years were way worse than Rae's four.

    Rich people run the major companies, get all the important sound-bites, and control the media. It's no surprise they've managed to engineer a collective false memory.

    Big Man in training.
    steam_sig.png
  • JeanJean Lonely québécois bear Gatineau, QuébecRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    maybe we should split and join Québec?

    You, Acadie and Vermont. I would welcome you all guys with open arms! :)

    L'empire français en Amérique! :)

    "You won't destroy us, You won't destroy our democracy. We are a small but proud nation. No one can bomb us to silence. No one can scare us from being Norway. This evening and tonight, we'll take care of each other. That's what we do best when attacked'' - Jens Stoltenberg
  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited May 2011
    What about Franco-Ontario and Northwestern Ontario?

    We want no part in Harperland. We even voted solid NDP like Quebec. ;)

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited May 2011
    The Cons want to deport this guy because "he doesn't look gay".

    http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/Gay_artist_Alvaro_Orozco_arrested-10154.aspx
    Orozco, now 25, fled Nicaragua to the United States when he was 12 after he says his father beat him for being gay. He lived illegally in the US until 2005 when he came to Toronto. At his initial refugee hearing in October of 2006, Immigration and Refugee Board member Deborah Lamont told him via teleconference from Calgary ­that she didn’t believe that he is gay.

    https://www.facebook.com/letalvarostay
    Orozco's case has also received media attention in Nicaragua, where gay sex is a crime and queers can face prosecution. In a rare recent communication with his mother — the only family he still speaks to — Orozco says that she told him she saw him on TV, knows that he's gay and thinks that Canada is the safest place for him.

  • hippofanthippofant Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Stephen Harper had only been PM for 8 months by October 2006. Do you have any evidence linking Deborah Lamont to the Conservative Party, or are you just fear-mongering?

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited May 2011
    hippofant wrote: »
    Stephen Harper had only been PM for 8 months by October 2006. Do you have any evidence linking Deborah Lamont to the Conservative Party, or are you just fear-mongering?

    Jason Kenney is doing shit all to stop it, in any case.

    And Deborah Lamont looks to be a "non-partisan" from Calgary.
    http://www.slapupsidethehead.com/tag/deborah-lamont/

  • Nova_CNova_C Sniff Sniff Snorf Beyond The WallRegistered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Buncha recounts going on it seems. I knew Etobicoke Center would, but the NDP picked up another seat from the Conservatives in Quebec as a result of a recount there. Interesting.

  • AegisAegis Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    The key question is: does that Quebec recount pickup involve another early twenties, vacationing MP?

  • KorlashKorlash Registered User
    edited May 2011
    Robman wrote: »
    I think he would, his party has shown itself willing to seriously consider Coalitions with other parties before and that would pretty much be the norm under just about any variant of Proportional Representation.

    He's always stood to gain seats in a PR system. Now, he would lose seats and would be forced into a mixed cabinet with the Liberals - promising them rather choice positions in order to woo them from the conservatives - rather then being able to carry on the Jack Layton show.

    If the current numbers hold, Layton is the strongest opposition that a government has faced in quite some time. They're poised to strike into Ontario and the Atlantic provinces from their Quebec stronghold. I'm sure Layton will talk real big about PR and STV. I'm also pretty sure he's a savvy politician who won't endanger his best chance at a fancy house on Sussex.

    I wouldn't say they have a stronghold here just yet. I think we've shown that when we want change, we don't half-ass it. If the NDP doesn't do a good enough job of opposing the conservatives, they will be flushed out of the province.

    396796-1.png
  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    It's interesting that the NDP got so much traction in Quebec, given their staunch anti-asbestos position.

  • darkphoenix22darkphoenix22 Registered User
    edited May 2011
    More on Alvaro:

    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=102464943178794&id=100000103590028
    This is just yet another reason why we so desperately need a formal appeal process for the IRB, as it is just one person can determine if a refugee is gay "enough" to warrant refugee protection, it used to be a panel of 3 people deciding such cases but in a cost cutting move it was reduced to just one person, a formal appeal process was supposed to have been established when that change was made but it never happened. Now just one person with all their personal bigotries and prejudices can determine life or death for LGBT refugees in Canada. That is just plain wrong, especially when considering LGBT applicants due to the refusal of many IRB judges to recognize applicants as LGBT for the flimsiest of reasons.

  • RobmanRobman Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    Canada has a long and proud history of turning away refugee claimants on the slimmest of excuses. Hell, we still have an institutional bias that favours arriving by air rather then by sea.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited May 2011
    We need to start telling refugees to dress gayer apparently.

    Or send in pictures of them having gay sex on the application or something.

This discussion has been closed.