The day I have waited for 10 years.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Are you seriously using this for your argument? The two are completely different. Highly educated people working within the bounds of their job to share information and improve our world, vs an ignorant uneducated person using his job as a soapbox for his personal views.

And for the last time, he wasn't fired for voicing his views anyway. That's what he said, that's not what happened. He was fired for lying, and for advertising the CT brand with nazi imagery on his Facebook page. Had he simply voiced his view, he'd probably still have his job, but he purposely used his position to promote his values while dragging his employer into the mud. No employer would allow you to do that.

That's my exact point though. He was fired because he represented himself as a CT employee and CT brand.

I'm saying that someone could do the same thing could happen with scientists. By allowing free access to media, it's very easy for a Canadian scientist, representing the Government of Canada, to release a report denying that climate change exists, which would be exceptionally damaging to our brand worldwide.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

That's my exact point though. He was fired because he represented himself as a CT employee and CT brand.

I'm saying that someone could do the same thing could happen with scientists. By allowing free access to media, it's very easy for a Canadian scientist, representing the Government of Canada, to release a report denying that climate change exists, which would be exceptionally damaging to our brand worldwide.

But it wasn't a problem before Harper, so what changed?

And I'd still argue, that if your focusing on the brand part of the argument or not, it's still a false equivalency. These scientists were working within the bounds of their job, indeed what they were actually hired for. The bus driver was not hired for his viewpoints on gay marriage. He was hired to drive a bus.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Daradon

But it wasn't a problem before Harper, so what changed?

My opinion is that it was an unsaid policy previously, and wasn't abused often. The Harper government put the policy to paper, and people that hated him used it as ammunition to hate on him.

In my opinion, nothing changed, like you insinuate. Scientists that went to the press pre-Harper were probably given the same angry chats behind closed doors. But once it became written policy, it became very easy to attack.

Pure conjecture. Pushing my personal ideology - which is "Every single person, including Steven Harper, is a good person at heart and works with the best intentions in mind."

[guzzy]

If Harper's time as PM really made your life that bad for ten years i think you need a new life.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Before it's vetted? Yes. When CERN found the Higgs-Boson, no scientist was allowed to talk about it until they all got together, figured out their results, ensured that their messaging was consistent, and THEN they held a press conference to announce this. Why should we not expect similar vetting?

Vetted by whom? A peer group of scientists? Sure. Harper? No, why the hell should his (or whoever he had reviewing this stuff) opinion count for anything unless they were scientists in the same field?

Government needs to fund science. Science has no obligation to conform it's findings to the government's wishes. They shouldn't be reviewing anything, just reacting to the information the same as the rest of us. Peer reviews should be taking place at academic institutions and findings released in scientific publications.

Originally Posted by Regorium

My opinion is that it was an unsaid policy previously, and wasn't abused often. The Harper government put the policy to paper, and people that hated him used it as ammunition to hate on him.

In my opinion, nothing changed, like you insinuate. Scientists that went to the press pre-Harper were probably given the same angry chats behind closed doors. But once it became written policy, it became very easy to attack.

Pure conjecture. Pushing my personal ideology - which is "Every single person, including Steven Harper, is a good person at heart and works with the best intentions in mind."

Angry chats behind closed doors is fine, and human nature. It doesn't mean they have the right to restrict the information if they don't like it. And "every person works with the best intentions in mind"? Come on dude, I'm all for faith in humanity, but really? What peoples "best intentions" are could be completely different. If Harper's intention is to remain as party of power, and payback industries for their support of the party, those intentions are not in alignment with that of Canadians. Politics is not about these people's individual intentions, it's about enacting the will of the people, regardless of how that affects your personal priorities.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Right. It is. You've found one example where there was inefficiency. What was in that 110 page email chain? What was so difficult? I really want to know the answer.

I provided you with I believe 6 examples. If you want to know, why don't you find out?

Originally Posted by Regorium

Before it's vetted? Yes. When CERN found the Higgs-Boson, no scientist was allowed to talk about it until they all got together, figured out their results, ensured that their messaging was consistent, and THEN they held a press conference to announce this. Why should we not expect similar vetting?

The parallels you are drawing (CT bus driver, cern scientists talking amongst themselves) pretty well proves to me you are either intentionally being obtuse or simply do not understand what you're talking about.

These are false equivalences, they aren't even tenuously related.

Originally Posted by Regorium

Science is infallible. Scientists are not.

I can provide you many links of scientists doctoring data. Environmentalists that use junk science. Statisticians that can make the data say anything. Scientists that are influenced by funding (whether from the Sierra club, or Exxon Mobil). The list goes on.

Which is why scientists need to share and explain their research with the rest of the scientific community as well as the public, so we can all have informed discourse.

[Locke]

So...as the day nears a close...how was it? Everything you ever hoped for and more?

Did you have coitus on a Unicorn with a mermaid?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My opinion is that it was an unsaid policy previously, and wasn't abused often. The Harper government put the policy to paper, and people that hated him used it as ammunition to hate on him.

In my opinion, nothing changed, like you insinuate. Scientists that went to the press pre-Harper were probably given the same angry chats behind closed doors. But once it became written policy, it became very easy to attack.

Pure conjecture. Pushing my personal ideology - which is "Every single person, including Steven Harper, is a good person at heart and works with the best intentions in mind."

Well, I guess if it's your opinion that's fine. But if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

My opinion flows along the lines of at least circumstantial evidence, rather than no evidence at all. Harper is pro O&G (pro is probably the wrong word, lets say O&G obsessed) and didn't like the info coming out about global warming and environmental destruction. Gag orders were issued, info was hidden, jobs were lost. A person like you would accuse me (and many others, cause it appears to be a more popular opinion than your own) of taking leaps here, but circumstantially it makes a heck of a lot more sense than just, 'it probably was a private policy before, it just became public policy.' The fact was, it WASN'T a problem before, so your taking a bigger leap than I. It also explains a lot of the funding he chose to do or cut.

As for him being a bad man or not doing his best, I don't think he is a bad man, obviously he was doing what he felt was right. But I do think he is an egotistical man who became increasingly unable to work with others or see outside of his own limited vision. I think he lacked the vision of the bigger picture, both economically and environmentally, and is unable to see past his own answers or to the future outside of ten years. I think he got caught up in his own ambitions and his vision of Canada rather than our collective vision. I think he was willfully ignorant on many issues of science, and willfully ignorant on many desires of the electorate. I think he purposefully degraded democracy and transparency to try and aid his vision.

If he truly thought what he was doing was right for Canada, then perhaps you can't call him bad. On the other hand, people do have a lot of justifications for doing horrible things, believing themselves the only one who knows the truth, or that they are doing it for the greater good. If one is purposefully deceitful, should it matter if they think they are working for the greater good? A lot of criminals or 'bad men' would be guilt free is this was true.

[dissentowner]

Thought this thread would be about CF finally losing his virginity, left disappointed.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Locke

So...as the day nears a close...how was it? Everything you ever hoped for and more?

Did you have coitus on a Unicorn with a mermaid?

lol this place is awesome.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Locke

So...as the day nears a close...how was it? Everything you ever hoped for and more?

Did you have coitus on a Unicorn with a mermaid?

[Robo]

Originally Posted by Locke

He was a very strange looking man. Amongst strange looking men he was the strangest.

Just not a photogenic human.

Which is odd because I think if aliens invaded we could fend them off with his perfect hair. I think his hair is made of adamantium.

i would put him in the same category as will ferrell and john c riley for weird looking men

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by rubecube

If you go back and look at what the pollsters were reporting, the Liberals tended to be in the lead among those who had completed a university degree.

Yup, and when i was finishing my post secondary education i couldn't care less about politics. I was way more concerned with possible job opportunities and and what i was going to do the next weekend. I can honestly say that during my entire post secondary education not once did we discuss or care about politics nor did i hear it in the halls or cafeterias.

It wasn't until my life got rolling and the issues actually started making a difference in my life did i start taking an interest.

According to your thought, university students are the smartest people in the world ( totally disagree with the generalization ) but it would be more interesting to ask them what each party stands for and how they think it will impact their lives. I'm quite confident the majority would tell you their more focused on passing their finals.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

According to your thought, university students are the smartest people in the world

According to me? Please show me where I wrote that.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by rubecube

According to me? Please show me where I wrote that.

Right there. Caught with the smoking gun.

[Sluggo]

Reddit has leaked into here. It will become apparent that politics is and always was the maintenance and preservation of the status qou.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Yup, and when i was finishing my post secondary education i couldn't care less about politics. I was way more concerned with possible job opportunities and and what i was going to do the next weekend. I can honestly say that during my entire post secondary education not once did we discuss or care about politics nor did i hear it in the halls or cafeterias.

Huh. That seems odd to me. Didn't you at least have to take a political science or history or sociology or philosophy course or something? Nobody at your university was even remotely interested in current events? No protests or petitions or political griping of any sort?

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Buster

Public service unions have been using a very privileged position to enrich themselves, gut our budgets, and generally manipulate our democratic/political system.

They are a function of the Big State, and along with corporatism (Bombardier et al), are as big a threat as we have to a smoothly functioning society. Probably the biggest.

Unions influence on politics, and more important policy decisions pale in comparison to big business, corporations and the 1%.

Sure they can be a problem when they grow big enough to manipulate politicians for their own personal gain, not the benefit of its membership which ultimately is their duty.

The long drawn out destruction of unions is a part of our stagnant middle class wages of the last 40 years. I know there are other factors, but one of the great successes of big business is turning the public against unions which have long fought for better wages, working conditions and a long list of reasons why we enjoy a higher standard of living than nations without them.

[GGG]

Causation or correlation?

Also public unions are terrible as the the government doesn't have a good way to fight against them.

Private Union goes on strike you play a game of chicken with the company at stake. There is negative risk that the company is no longer profitable after giving in to union demands. In the public sector taxes are raised to accommodate.

So even if your statement that unions are responsae for better wages is and working conditions is causal I would argue that it is private unions and not public ones that provide these benefits.

[Thor]

Said they are part, there is a lot more to the story. I agree some unions became bloated, abusive and harmful to business and the people they purported to represent.

But the stagnation of the middle class for decades now has gone with the largest transfer of wealth from the rest of us to very very few.

I just hate when people blow out of proportion the influence of what few unions are left vs the immensity of corporate influence on politics and legislation. My conservative friends are losing their collective minds over the Ontario teachers union, while conveniently not at all bothered by the corruption brought on our society by special interest.

But I will agree private unions vs public have a much better track record. I also now live in the one extreme in Iceland where most people in Iceland are a part of a union, and I also worked in the summers as a student Molsons brewery in Calgary which closed for one reason, the union was a bunch of idiots who thought they could refuse an offer that would have kept them open and would have close the Edmonton brewery instead.

But having no unions and relying on business to keep up wages with cost of living is a pipe dream, tying ourselves to a world wide casino in the wall street stockholder world means labor suffers wage cuts as an easy way of improving profit margins, while globalization sees more and more jobs move away from the west.