• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: The News Thread

And Leafovic, seriously, if the Liberals ran with a turnip as their leader, you'd enthusiastically support the turnip.

He's one of the best communicators in parliament, he's got charisma, he seems to know strategy, he's an interesting guy to listen to. I believe he's a changed guy and I'd support him.

Having said that, nowhere did I say that it be good strategy to have him as leader. Just as a personal thing, he's uber cute imo.
 
Of course I see an issue here with this particular case....but, the crown was only going after 6 years, so it's not like you would have been pleased with the outcome in any event.

My concern overall is that your tenor continually seems to favour an American style justice system, when theirs is the most monstrous cluster**** in the western world.

Everyone, absolutely everyone else in the western world does it better, with lower societal crime rates as a bi product.

anyways...got a plane to catch

Bit of a misnomer here.

The American justice has systemic flaws because half of their world-leading 2.3 million incarcerated population is imprisoned due to relatively petty drug offences.

Where the U.S gets things right consistently is how they deal with sentencing murderers, serial rapists, and pedophiles. They give them serious punishments rather than Canada's bizarre policy of seemingly caring more about agressors than victims.
 
I don't want a US style prison system, but I do want sex offenders off the street and serving significant time in jail. They are incurable. They will re-offend.

I don't believe in guilty until proven innocent. But I agree with your first sentence.
 
The architects of the latest Conservative anti-Rae attack ad must be exchanging high-fives.

After all, their devious plan is working to perfection – Interim Liberal leader Bob Rae is getting tons of good ink.

This is great news for the Conservatives because, as I recently noted, the Tory attack ad was not meant to hurt Rae but to help him.

To sum it up: Any Conservative attack on Rae from the right, will undoubtedly rally leftist voters to his defence. This would in turn undermine the NDP.

It’s an old political trick.

So the Conservatives must be pleased to see the media help their cause.

The Globe and Mail’s John Ibbitson, for instance, wrote the Tories are attacking Rae because they are afraid.

As he put it, “The Conservatives are convinced Mr. Rae will lead the Liberal Party into the next election–an increasingly safe assumption. And they fear him more than they fear whomever the New Democrats choose on Saturday.”

Meanwhile, the Vancouver Sun’s Barbara Yaffe writes:

Rae is a guy with an enviable CV: a law degree from the Universityof Torontoand a PhD from Oxfordin England. He’s a Rhodes Scholar, an officer of both the Order of Canada and the Order of Ontario, a past chair of the Royal Conservatory and the Toronto Symphony. He has a suitably folksy side as well, with a website labelling him “a family man, author and fisherman.”

By contrast, Harper, with a Master’s degree in economics from the University of Calgary, has more pedestrian credentials.

And if columnists are thinking this way, it’s probable many rank and file Liberals are thinking that way too: If Harper is attacking Rae, he must fear Rae, ergo we should support Rae. The Tories must have known it would play out this way — in fact, they were counting on it.

What’s to fear? I hate to be blunt, but Rae is a past-his-prime politician who leads a third place, cash-starved, intellectually-bankrupt, down-in-the polls political party that lacks a regional base.

Yeah, I’m sure Harper is just shaking in his boots.

And does anybody seriously believe Rae’s academic credentials make him a threat to Harper? If that was the case Harvard-educated Michael Ignatieff would have won in a landslide.

If anything, it’s more likely Harper and the Tories would dearly love to see Rae stay as Liberal leader.

And so when Ibbitson and Yaffe and other writers praise Rae to the high heavens, it’s music to Tory ears.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/22/gerry-nicholls-rae-attack-hits-its-mark/
 
The national post has as much credibility as Sun Media and the Toronto Star. They have never been one to hide their right wing leanings.
 
Doctors lobby for higher taxes on wealthy Canadians

The Canadian Press

Updated: Thu. Mar. 22 2012 7:01 AM ET
TORONTO — A group of doctors is calling on federal and provincial governments to raise income taxes levied on high-income Canadians.
They are launching a campaign to get support for the idea, using the slogan "Tax us. Canada's worth it."
Doctors for Fair Taxation are proposing new surtaxes that would tax any income over $100,000.
People who earn between $100,000 and $170,000 would pay an extra one per cent on the income between those two figures and income between $170,000 and $640,000 would be subject to an extra two per cent levy.
Income over $640,000 and less than $1.85 million would be hit with an additional three per cent and income over $1.85 million would be subject to an additional surtax of six per cent.
The group estimates that the federal government would earn an extra $3.5 billion a year and Ontario would raise an extra $1.7 billion.
One of the organizers of the campaign, Dr. Michael Rachlis, says more than 50 doctors have signed the petition so far. A website hosting the petition will go live Thursday afternoon.
"Our group considers higher taxes a small price to pay for a more civilized Canada," says Rachlis, a public health physician and associate professor at the University of Toronto.
"We're becoming a more economically unequal society and we feel this is bad for our country's health."
Rachlis says the aim of the campaign is to get Canadians who would be paying the higher taxes to indicate their willingness, saying the organizers feel it would carry more weight that way.
Though the campaign has been started by doctors, anyone earning over $100,000 who supports the proposal can sign the petition.
One of the early signatories is Dr. Irfan Dalla, a Toronto-based physician who is also a member of Canadian Doctors for Medicare.
"Governments don't have the resources they need to address some of the causes of ill-health and some of the social programs that people want and need. And I think that people like me who are paid reasonably well can afford to contribute a little bit more to ensure that we have a fair society," Dalla says.
Rachlis says action needs to be taken to spare crucial public programs.
"We feel that this is a moral argument. We cannot talk about throwing people out of work and cutting needed programs for people," he says
"If the situations is that dire that governments are really feeling that that should be done, it seems to me that the only way to think of that is to tax higher-income earners who've seen their taxes fall a lot."

Thoughts?
 
Non-violent crimes should def not have long sentences, in fact as it was before, many of these sentences could be done under house-arrest (certain types of fraud, etc)
 
The national post has as much credibility as Sun Media and the Toronto Star. They have never been one to hide their right wing leanings.
For sure. But I think that article's right, nonetheless. Harper would like nothing better than to see the Liberals rally behind Rae and make him their presumptive leader. He knows that the end result of that will be another freebie election where Ontario turns up their noses to the Liberals and the Tories cruise to another easy majority.
 
I started reading Scientific American when I was in my early teens. At that time, I didn't understand most of the articles but I would be damn if I didn't try.

Today, it's become a comedic journal of self important "scientist" screaming about sky falling. The end came about three years ago when I read an article which I knew far, far more then the whoever the twit was that passed himself as a "scientist". It was about the "carbon footprint" of wind turbines. He simply downplayed the "carbon" content of concrete and size of turbines, which basically more then doubled his babbling about "carbon content". I knew EXACTLY how much concrete/steel was in a foundation and what every turbine weighed. I wrote in that the article was false and misleading, gaving them a complete analysis based on the same "carbon content" sources that "scientist" used. Just for my own curiosity about their "scientific neutrality", I tried several times to get through, nothing. Why was that important? Because it's the kind of sources of pure garbage that the IPCC uses to "prove" the "scientific consensus" on sky falling. And some of you wonder why I'm so sceptical?

Anywho.....here they are the same inbred, self important agenda mongering that is passed of as science in what has become a agenda rag. In this case, it's "scientist" musing about World Government and World Order. And in case you think it's not important, it's the kind of "one think" journals that forms and feeds the "consensus" mentality.

This is from the editor........good luck getting any opposing article printed.

Effective World Government Will Be Needed to Stave Off Climate Catastrophe

Almost six years ago, I was the editor of a single-topic issue on energy for Scientific American that included an article by Princeton University’s Robert Socolow that set out a well-reasoned plan for how to keep atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations below a planet-livable threshold of 560 ppm. The issue came replete with technical solutions that ranged from a hydrogen economy to space-based solar.

If I had it to do over, I’d approach the issue planning differently, my fellow editors permitting. I would scale back on the nuclear fusion and clean coal, instead devoting at least half of the available space for feature articles on psychology, sociology, economics and political science. Since doing that issue, I’ve come to the conclusion that the technical details are the easy part. It’s the social engineering that’s the killer. Moon shots and Manhattan Projects are child’s play compared to needed changes in the way we behave.

The report summarized 10 years of research evaluating the capability of international institutions to deal with climate and other environmental issues, an assessment that found existing capabilities to effect change sorely lacking. The authors called for a “constitutional moment” at the upcoming 2012 U.N. Conference on Sustainable Development in Rio in June to reform world politics and government. Among the proposals: a call to replace the largely ineffective U.N. Commission on Sustainable Development with a council that reports to the U.N. General Assembly, at attempt to better handle emerging issues related to water, climate, energy and food security. The report advocates a similar revamping of other international environmental institutions.

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...l-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
 
Last edited:
referring to liberals as fiberals makes you sound like an high school drop out from a red neck community.

564551_10150642227666443_516271442_9720117_847376819_n.jpg

that is classic

the way the rich have convinced the poor in the US that raising taxes on the rich hurts the poor is amazing and should be taught the first day in any marketing course.
 
Back
Top