Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[Drak]

Regardless, not everyone smokes to consume weed..

[Looch City]

Harper's idiotic comments are trending on reddit worldnews now:

https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/c...obacco_harper/

[rubecube]

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/11/Lynton-Crosby-Things/

So it looks like Lynton Crosby is a tobacco lobbyist, which explains Harper's comments a bit. Boy, he sure surrounds himself with awesome human beings.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Drak

Regardless, not everyone smokes to consume weed..

With portable vapourizers, I don't see why anyone who can't afford one would still smoke weed at all.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by robbie111

Another huge issue is occurring with Elections Canada website and where to vote. I have my voting card and it says something different than the website does for where to vote, different town. Got my brother who lives 700 miles away to try and his is different too as is my sisters who lives in Ontario.

What the hell is going on!!!!!!!!!!


If we have another attempt at election fraud I'll be majorily pissed.

Just called the elections 1-866 number and let them know. It better be fixed.

Seems to be happening all over the place.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/1.3255367

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by rubecube

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/09/11/Lynton-Crosby-Things/

So it looks like Lynton Crosby is a tobacco lobbyist, which explains Harper's comments a bit. Boy, he sure surrounds himself with awesome human beings.

what a disgusting comment in context now. Harper is despicable.

[dammage79]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Seems to be happening all over the place.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/politics/story/1.3255367

Just double checked to make sure mine was good. And I am. Everyone should double check that.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Instead he implemented income splitting that is designed to persuade women to stay at home and be subservient.

Giving women the option to stay at home makes them subservient? Ha. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a wife/gf who makes up her own mind and doesn't let anyone tell her what to do.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by rubecube

At least he's posting facts to back up his claims. You're just going ad hominem on him.

And I note that your righteous indignation disappears when you or a left wing colleague attack a CPC supporter as being ignorant or uninformed for supporting a policy espoused of the CPC.

Back to point.

This is about pointing out he has become what he rallies so hard against. Doesn't matter the political stripe, you lose much credibility when pulling out absolutes.

It isn't about a discussion over the health consequences of one vs the other




But this is easy:

Do you agree that smoking or otherwise consuming pot impairs a person's performance or attention span?

Do you agree that driving or operating dangerous, sophisticated equipment should be done while a person is not impaired?

Is it therefore reasonable to suggest that some have been killed in automobile or machinery accidents resulting from an operator's impairment?

Or is it more reasonable that pot has never led to a death of any type, any where, at any time?

[calculoso]

Pot has never caused a death?

What about gangs and pot selling drug dealers that kill each other?

(this would also be a reason to legalize pot, to reduce the number of related deaths)

[AcGold]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

You are an absolutist and cannot see past your own bias and rhetoric for its failings

How so? I'm the farthest thing from an absolutist, I use the number zero because it's within a factor of 10 accuracy using scientific research from the US government. It shows how asinine it is to say something that causes on average zero deaths annually is worse than the leading cause of preventable death.

It's as though there is some kind of cognitive dissonance causing people to argue semantics over an issue with less than 10 ever versus 6 million annually. And that makes me an absolutist with bias?


Of course people have been killed getting involved. I was posting data about deaths from toxicity and that there is no increase in mortality with use. Never once said it's harmless and I never will but somehow that's always where it goes.

Why is there such a need to be pedantic and semantic about it? Why is there such a burning desire to get in that yeah but... of course I know people have been killed driving high, killed in gangs, killed in the drug trade... to so quickly make assumptions says a lot more about you guys than me. I was posting data from the U.S. government with no bias at all with the intent to show how insane Harper is, that's it. Have you no discernment?

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

And I note that your righteous indignation disappears when you or a left wing colleague attack a CPC supporter as being ignorant or uninformed for supporting a policy espoused of the CPC.

Back to point.

This is about pointing out he has become what he rallies so hard against. Doesn't matter the political stripe, you lose much credibility when pulling out absolutes.

It isn't about a discussion over the health consequences of one vs the other

No it's not about the health consequences, it's about Harper lying in the face of scientific evidence that proves him wrong by a factor of 6 million. You are incredible with rhetoric but it's all nonsense, you need to go to school or improve your reading comprehension because what you're putting out is illogical rhetoric rooted in false assumptions and personal attacks. "righteous indignation" "left wing colleague" give me a break. You lose all stripe when you show an inability to read or think coherently.

I have become what I rally against? So I'm Stephen Harper lying because I have pals in the tobacco industry? What a stupid thing to say, go read some books, think and read before you respond.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

With portable vapourizers, I don't see why anyone who can't afford one would still smoke weed at all.

Agreed. Also with vaping, you can keep the leftovers and bake with them or eat them as is, as long as you haven't incinerated the material.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by AcGold

How so? I'm the farthest thing from an absolutist, I use the number zero because it's within a factor of 10 accuracy using scientific research from the US government. It shows how asinine it is to say something that causes on average zero deaths annually is worse than the leading cause of preventable death.

It's as though there is some kind of cognitive dissonance causing people to argue semantics over an issue with less than 10 ever versus 6 million annually. And that makes me an absolutist with bias?


Of course people have been killed getting involved. I was posting data about deaths from toxicity and that there is no increase in mortality with use. Never once said it's harmless and I never will but somehow that's always where it goes.

Why is there such a need to be pedantic and semantic about it? Why is there such a burning desire to get in that yeah but... of course I know people have been killed driving high, killed in gangs, killed in the drug trade... to so quickly make assumptions says a lot more about you guys than me. I was posting data from the U.S. government with no bias at all with the intent to show how insane Harper is, that's it. Have you no discernment?



No it's not about the health consequences, it's about Harper lying in the face of scientific evidence that proves him wrong by a factor of 6 million. You are incredible with rhetoric but it's all nonsense, you need to go to school or improve your reading comprehension because what you're putting out is illogical rhetoric rooted in false assumptions and personal attacks. "righteous indignation" "left wing colleague" give me a break. You lose all stripe when you show an inability to read or think coherently.

I have become what I rally against? So I'm Stephen Harper lying because I have pals in the tobacco industry? What a stupid thing to say, go read some books, think and read before you respond.

bah,

not going to waste my time.

ignored.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Giving women the option to stay at home makes them subservient? Ha. Spoken like someone who doesn't have a wife/gf who makes up her own mind and doesn't let anyone tell her what to do.

By implementing tax policies that discourage women to work, it gives men more economic power over women and that economic power makes them vulnerable to abuse. These tax policies set back gender equality to 1950s levels. Lower income spouses tend to be women already. By discouraging any income, it harms their autonomy within the household. Not to mention, it is bad for the economy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...98M11Q20130923

Under its first female chief, Christine Lagarde, the International Monetary Fund has renewed its push to strengthen the role of women in the economy, arguing it can raise growth prospects and improve development.

Just having as many women in the labor force as men could boost economic growth by 5 percent in the United States, 9 percent in Japan, and 34 percent in Egypt, the IMF said.

In its study, the Fund said women have made gains in certain countries but still face discrimination and tax and labor policies that discourage them from working.

http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku....3&context=clpe

[calculoso]

By implementing tax policies that discourage women to work

Staying at home is not working? Seriously? Or do you mean not being paid to work (which these tax changes would actually address)?


I have no problem with encouraging women to work, but at the same time if they are truly ever going to have independence and equality then they have to have valid options and choices to do whatever they so choose.

Want to be an engineer? Sure
Want to be a nurse? No problem.
Want to be President of the USA? Knock yourself out, you have my support.
Want to run a daycare and take care of all of your neighbors' kids? Be my guest, just make sure you're registered and are paid.
Want to be a stay at home mom? NO.. NO NO.. this is bad. Don't ever choose this, no matter how much you want it, no matter how much work it is, no matter how good/bad it could be for the kids and your husband/wife.. just no.

Give me a break.

[indes]

There's a huge amount of people who think being a stay at home mom is anti feminist. We're having our first child soon and my wife is taking a ton of flack for wanting to be a stay at home mom.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by indes

There's a huge amount of people who think being a stay at home mom is anti feminist. We're having our first child soon and my wife is taking a ton of flack for wanting to be a stay at home mom.

Her idea or your idea and she's completely subservient to you?

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by indes

There's a huge amount of people who think being a stay at home mom is anti feminist. We're having our first child soon and my wife is taking a ton of flack for wanting to be a stay at home mom.

You should see the flack you get for not wanting to get married or have kids!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Staying at home is not working? Seriously? Or do you mean not being paid to work (which these tax changes would actually address)?


I have no problem with encouraging women to work, but at the same time if they are truly ever going to have independence and equality then they have to have valid options and choices to do whatever they so choose.

Want to be an engineer? Sure
Want to be a nurse? No problem.
Want to be President of the USA? Knock yourself out, you have my support.
Want to run a daycare and take care of all of your neighbors' kids? Be my guest, just make sure you're registered and are paid.
Want to be a stay at home mom? NO.. NO NO.. this is bad. Don't ever choose this, no matter how much you want it, no matter how much work it is, no matter how good/bad it could be for the kids and your husband/wife.. just no.

Give me a break.

It's not about individual anecdotes. It's about what the tax policy promotes at the population level. It's fine if it works for you, but no one (or no family) is an island.

If you accept that, a) gender inequality exists, and b) that economic inequality between genders is a root cause; then it stands to reason that making incentives to discourage women from working will increase gender inequality.

Maybe you don't believe that points "a" and "b" exist.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Pot has never caused a death?

It is something like this in the U.S -

Tobacco: 480,000
Alcohol: 88,000
Marijuana: > 0

No one knows exactly how many people die from using pot, but the number is most certainly much much lower than almost any other drug. And even if that wasn't true some of the most dangerous substances are legal so if people want pot usage to continue to be illegal then the same people should want tobacco and alcohol made illegal.