Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I've taken a beak from being critical of our government- basking in the fresh air afforded to Canadians after the foul odor of Harper was soundly punted from office. Gawd that Atlantic pummeling was one of the sweetest things I can recall (watching the results roll in and the sweep ensue).
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I've taken a beak from being critical of our government- basking in the fresh air afforded to Canadians after the foul odor of Harper was soundly punted from office. Gawd that Atlantic pummeling was one of the sweetest things I can recall (watching the results roll in and the sweep ensue).
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
Agree ... But sadly you'll be hearing Harpers name a lot as the Supreme Court sets about to declare more of his crime bill unconstitutional ... Had to be the worst PM ever.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
Well the PM will be there Friday ... Hope this helps.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Edmonton-area MP Rona Ambrose, the interim Conservative leader, offered rare praise for the Liberal government move.
“For things to happen quickly, everyone has to come together around the table very fast and start to make decisions to move things forward, so that’s the right approach,” said Ambrose.
So you got a pot dispensary problem? Peoples from Toronto, is it really that bad? Or is Tory paving the way for regulation? Wonder why he went to the feds first? The next year will be interesting ... Thought from folks in the GTA? Even like to hear from PJSoul, BC has plenty of dispensaries, have just started cracking down and regulating.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it's pretty crazy ... you show up at these shops and you can skype a "doctor" who basically makes sure you have the right "symptoms" and he/she writes you a prescription ...
i think legalization is the way to go anyways so - not sure I would call this a problem ...
it's pretty crazy ... you show up at these shops and you can skype a "doctor" who basically makes sure you have the right "symptoms" and he/she writes you a prescription ...
i think legalization is the way to go anyways so - not sure I would call this a problem ...
Can't say I blame doctors who partake in this practice, many people still have trouble getting their own doctors on board ... So I'm sure most doctors are liking the ability to earn extra $$$.
I support legalization 100%, I would say in many ways it's almost legal now ... A doctors script is all one needs to avoid being hassled.
And I believe Wynn has said cities have to develop their own regulation covering these shops.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
it's pretty crazy ... you show up at these shops and you can skype a "doctor" who basically makes sure you have the right "symptoms" and he/she writes you a prescription ...
i think legalization is the way to go anyways so - not sure I would call this a problem ...
Can't say I blame doctors who partake in this practice, many people still have trouble getting their own doctors on board ... So I'm sure most doctors are liking the ability to earn extra $$$.
I support legalization 100%, I would say in many ways it's almost legal now ... A doctors script is all one needs to avoid being hassled.
And I believe Wynn has said cities have to develop their own regulation covering these shops.
Yes, the reason the dispensaries provide this kind of doctor prescription is because so many people don't have a doctor who will prescribe it themselves (they are stuck under the stigma still IMO). I can't even find a family doctor myself (bad problem where I am), so my doctor is at a clinic, and the clinic doesn't do it as a rule. Anyway, just last week I switched from a place in the Vancouver grey zone to a licensed dispensary (the new place honoured my membership from the other place, so no need to get a new prescription), just for peace of mind, now that Vancouver is ridiculously cracking down on most of the shops and forcing them into a rigged licensing process. I think licensing is fine and dandy, but not when they rig the process the way they are. Well, I don't have to worry now. I don't know if the licensed MEDICAL dispensaries will just continue on as usual once it's legalized... I would hope so, since it's a specialized area, separate from just recreational retail.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I've taken a beak from being critical of our government- basking in the fresh air afforded to Canadians after the foul odor of Harper was soundly punted from office. Gawd that Atlantic pummeling was one of the sweetest things I can recall (watching the results roll in and the sweep ensue).
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
So Eddie shows up, and he plays a song and leaves.
The PM who runs your country and will be instrumental in how to fix the problem shows up and it means squat to you?
I gotta tell you, that is modern logic. Would it mean the same if it was Justin Beiber? Because I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those people don't give a fuck about Eddie either. Difference is, Trudeau is everyone's PM
I'm not saying "high five people". I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old the way you put words in my mouth He should be there to give them hope you cheeky bastard. You have no fucking idea what those people are going through and neither does Trudeau. His job is to SERVE Canadians. What is more important than these people who suddenly have no home?
Your lack of compassion is sickening, and so is Trudeau's. All politicians are assholes, but he really takes the cake by not doing the right thing.
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I've taken a beak from being critical of our government- basking in the fresh air afforded to Canadians after the foul odor of Harper was soundly punted from office. Gawd that Atlantic pummeling was one of the sweetest things I can recall (watching the results roll in and the sweep ensue).
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
So Eddie shows up, and he plays a song and leaves.
The PM who runs your country and will be instrumental in how to fix the problem shows up and it means squat to you?
I gotta tell you, that is modern logic. Would it mean the same if it was Justin Beiber? Because I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those people don't give a fuck about Eddie either. Difference is, Trudeau is everyone's PM
I'm not saying "high five people". I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old the way you put words in my mouth He should be there to give them hope you cheeky bastard. You have no fucking idea what those people are going through and neither does Trudeau. His job is to SERVE Canadians. What is more important than these people who suddenly have no home?
Your lack of compassion is sickening, and so is Trudeau's. All politicians are assholes, but he really takes the cake by not doing the right thing.
Don't talk of my lack of compassion when you've used this incident to promote your boring political position regarding Trudeau (the guy who slaughtered your chosen one in the last federal election and left you sobbing on your Edmonton Oilers pillow).
You're the most transparent routine poster on this forum (in my 12 year old opinion).
So when the fire was raging in the town and close to the town what purpose would Trudeau being there solved ... If anything him being there would have been more harmful. I imagine all RCMP resources were needed in fort Mac and area, not to mention all other resources were needed at the time and not devoted to the PM. And I think it's safe to assume the timing of him going to fort Mac was made in consultation with the premier of Alberta and other officials. I certainly don't take him not showing up in the middle of the crisis as a lack empathy ... More good judgement. It's not like he was going to man a fire hose ... hehehe. And I'm no supporter of him, I do however find him a nice change of pace after the last decade or do of Harper ... and I doubt Harper would have done much different.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Why does every event have to involve politics. . And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.
- this is a Canadian politics thread. You are never critical of the government?
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really. And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I've taken a beak from being critical of our government- basking in the fresh air afforded to Canadians after the foul odor of Harper was soundly punted from office. Gawd that Atlantic pummeling was one of the sweetest things I can recall (watching the results roll in and the sweep ensue).
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
So Eddie shows up, and he plays a song and leaves.
The PM who runs your country and will be instrumental in how to fix the problem shows up and it means squat to you?
I gotta tell you, that is modern logic. Would it mean the same if it was Justin Beiber? Because I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those people don't give a fuck about Eddie either. Difference is, Trudeau is everyone's PM
I'm not saying "high five people". I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old the way you put words in my mouth He should be there to give them hope you cheeky bastard. You have no fucking idea what those people are going through and neither does Trudeau. His job is to SERVE Canadians. What is more important than these people who suddenly have no home?
Your lack of compassion is sickening, and so is Trudeau's. All politicians are assholes, but he really takes the cake by not doing the right thing.
Don't talk of my lack of compassion when you've used this incident to promote your boring political position regarding Trudeau (the guy who slaughtered your chosen one in the last federal election and left you sobbing on your Edmonton Oilers pillow).
You're the most transparent routine poster on this forum (in my 12 year old opinion).
:lol. I actually haven't criticized Trudeau once since he was elected. Of course some of his asinine campaign promises are being re-thought, like mail delivery to your home and whatnot, but overall I think he's doing ok. I think he should be here, you don't. I'm ok with that, just don't misconstrue my reasoning. I actually condemns Harper for going to Kelowna (and did again five posts ago).
And I don't watch hockey so I am not sure how the Edmonton Oilers come into this.... Weird.
And I thank you for the compliment, as I have nothing to hide and am consistent in my well thought out beliefs and opinions
I still think Trudeau should be visiting the evacuees, I have yet to hear a good reason why he shouldn't or how the media hasn't taken him to task for it. Instead it's just noise.
So when the fire was raging in the town and close to the town what purpose would Trudeau being there solved ... If anything him being there would have been more harmful. I imagine all RCMP resources were needed in fort Mac and area, not to mention all other resources were needed at the time and not devoted to the PM. And I think it's safe to assume the timing of him going to fort Mac was made in consultation with the premier of Alberta and other officials. I certainly don't take him not showing up in the middle of the crisis as a lack empathy ... More good judgement. It's not like he was going to man a fire hose ... hehehe. And I'm no supporter of him, I do however find him a nice change of pace after the last decade or do of Harper ... and I doubt Harper would have done much different.
Once again, I said visit the evacuees, not Fort Mac. If the evacuees were in Fort Mac, they wouldn't be evacuees How is this so difficult? Now it's just comical
it's called partisanship ... complete lack of reasoning and objectivity ...
Partisanship - In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
I have no affiliation to any party. Federally or provincially. How could I be partisan?
Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining one's objectivity is the most important job of a judge. The meaning of objectivity is easy to remember, when you see that the word "object" embedded within it.
I would contend I am far more objective than the regressive, hardcore enviro left who believes the oil should be "left in the ground". How is that objective or practicable? I actually work in environment. That is what is so hilarious about this. You have no idea how seriously big industry and the government take the environment now. The legislation and codes on the environment would fill a small library.
But, those folks who chain themselves to trees serve a purpose I guess. To each their own.
it's called partisanship ... complete lack of reasoning and objectivity ...
Partisanship - In politics, a partisan is a committed member of a political party. In multi-party systems, the term is used for politicians who strongly support their party's policies and are reluctant to compromise with their political opponents.
I have no affiliation to any party. Federally or provincially. How could I be partisan?
Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining one's objectivity is the most important job of a judge. The meaning of objectivity is easy to remember, when you see that the word "object" embedded within it.
I would contend I am far more objective than the regressive, hardcore enviro left who believes the oil should be "left in the ground". How is that objective or practicable? I actually work in environment. That is what is so hilarious about this. You have no idea how seriously big industry and the government take the environment now. The legislation and codes on the environment would fill a small library.
But, those folks who chain themselves to trees serve a purpose I guess. To each their own.
I sleep well at night
Lol.
He came too late. I wonder if he wore the right color shirt?
Do you think Trudeau gave some good high fives and remedied the evacuees of their sorrow? You're the Canadian version of the US Obama blamers... and I didn't think we had those types up here. Good job!
In an earlier exchange, didn't you become indignant when I suggested, ultimately, Trudeau's visit will amount to high fives... yet you feel free to employ similar tactics to make your points (like mocking environmental activists as 'people who chain themselves to trees')?
If you were objective, you would see the value in concerning yourself with the environment as well as recognizing the dependence and consumption patterns of society. You wouldn't spend your time apologizing for the oil industry just as you wouldn't spend your time mocking activists and, for that matter, people on this board.
* Cue nauseating reply with intertwined insults and boasts.
Marysville, WA had a massive mudslide a few years back that killed 14 people. Houses are still buried under the displaced soil. It was a devastating incident.
Obama came to WA about a month later when it was appropriate.
Prior to his visit... he supported response measures and offered words of encouragement. I might be mistaken, but he was not heavily criticized for the timing of his visit. When making US/Canada comparisons with regards to leadership response to disaster, it might be useful to point out this example: even Obama's legion of haters understood there was only so much he could do physically and refrained from bashing him despite that being part time hobbies for many.
Blaming Trudeau for not getting there the moment it happened is, quite frankly, juvenile and, goes without saying, opportunistic for those in the full or part time practice of bashing him.
All that and no comment about what the people that were there wanted....
Thirty, I don't care if you agree with me or not. I don't care about my or your politics. I care about the evacuees. They wanted to see the PM, he didn't go see them. That's his problem.
There are no votes for him in Fort Mac, so he doesn't really have to worry about what people there think, but I would have gone to talk to the evacuees.
I have not been critical of the different levels of government handling of the disaster. In fact, friends of mine on the front line have said its been fantastic. Credit is given where credit is due.
I see no need to make this out to anything more than a mistake he made You guys will fall all over yourselves to defend the guy. I merely asked a question which no one could (or will) answer. Why did he not go to see the evacuees (instead he did a guided tour of the disaster area like he was in Banff) and why did the media not (at least) question this decision?
You instead simply attacked me and my "partisanship" which I have none of. Do your job I say. I think Trudeau didn't in this case. The love affair continues haha
Your comment standing alone would be quite fair; however, let's not forget the entire context from which it originated.
You've been hypercritical and disrespectful to say the least for the guy prior to him even being elected. You even felt it necessary to anoint him an idiot it 'the idiot thread'. Therefore, you'll have to excuse many of us for not regarding your case as one with much legitimacy- it just seems like yet another attempt to try and paint the PM as a dolt.
It's not a case of anyone being in love with the guy as much as it is a case of people tiring of the unwarranted criticism.
Disregarding the body of work you have produced portraying Trudeau as a buffoon... I can accept the fact that you feel he should have been more accessible. How about you accept the fact that I (and others) feel he acted reasonably?
Your comment standing alone would be quite fair; however, let's not forget the entire context from which it originated.
You've been hypercritical and disrespectful to say the least for the guy prior to him even being elected. You even felt it necessary to anoint him an idiot it 'the idiot thread'. Therefore, you'll have to excuse many of us for not regarding your case as one with much legitimacy- it just seems like yet another attempt to try and paint the PM as a dolt.
It's not a case of anyone being in love with the guy as much as it is a case of people tiring of the unwarranted criticism.
Disregarding the body of work you have produced portraying Trudeau as a buffoon... I can accept the fact that you feel he should have been more accessible. How about you accept the fact that I (and others) feel he acted reasonably?
And then we move on.
Fair enough. I did think he was a buffoon. I did think he was unqualified. He made some pretty immature comments in the past and during the election campaign. Will Imever be a fan? Probably not.
Outside of that goofy grin he has when dealing with really serious issues, I think he has done a fair job. He has some good advisors for sure. I'm still not a fan of the new tax scheme. Creating a "strong middle class" should involve lifting the poor up not dragging the people who clawed their way out of the middle with hard work back in.
Creating a strong middle class is this confounding Canadian belief in mediocrity. It's ok to be average, just not in hockey for some odd reason, where hard work and passion is lauded.
I said, the front line workers have received great resources. The Feds have matched the donations to the Red Cross with our tax dollars. He should have visited the evacuees.
Trudeau in the idiot thread? That was comedy Come on, I just like to rufflle feathers.
But like the Fort Mac thread, I think I'm done here. It was fun for a while, but it is just waaaay to one-sided around here. No hard feelings and Cheers!
I like this statement: Creating a "strong middle class" should involve lifting the poor up not dragging the people who clawed their way out of the middle with hard work back in.
federal matching dollars and all programs such as extending EI benefits and what not are all SOCIAL programs ... i always find it interesting when people who claim to be against "big gov't" and social programs demand action from the gov't via the same means it aims to address the needs of all canadians ...
EI is not a social program, it's a program that both the employee and employer pay into that happens to be run by the government. It's been no secret that the government over the years have used funds from that fund for purposes other than its intended use. If Trudeau was really different he'd see to it that the monies are only used for unemployed workers and the programs needed by said workers. EI should be a program administered arms length from the government. So as it stands now EI is just another payroll tax.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Comments
Every event involves politics because the government is in control of the situation. Simple as that really.
And who made the rule that we can't compare disasters in different countries? You don't think shared knowledge is a good thing? Besides, the Canadian media was pretty hard on Bush for not going to NO, and he wasn't running this country.
Anyways... I only asked the question and no one could actually answer why it was reported differently. And once again the intolerance of most in this thread limits the ability to have an intelligent debate. All you get is ranting and raving that Trudeau shouldn't grab a garden hose and save the McDonald's in Beacon Hill, which I never suggested in the first place.
I thought it was PJS that answered your question. I though she said that the crisis intervention response time was criticized heavily. I agreed with her and when you compare these two items... Fort Mc and the Canadian response units are gold medal winners (there's no room for criticism there).
You are being critical because Trudeau isn't there to high five people. Nobody else really feels that strongly about his absence. If I was homeless as a result of this fire... Trudeau's presence would mean squat to me. I might feel good seeing Eddie and the gang with a small acoustic set to please me... but a politician? Might be just me... but it would mean nothing.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Edmonton-area MP Rona Ambrose, the interim Conservative leader, offered rare praise for the Liberal government move.
“For things to happen quickly, everyone has to come together around the table very fast and start to make decisions to move things forward, so that’s the right approach,” said Ambrose.
https://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2016/05/09/medical-pot-shop-gets-surprise-visitor-mayor-john-tory.html
Toronto...
So you got a pot dispensary problem? Peoples from Toronto, is it really that bad? Or is Tory paving the way for regulation? Wonder why he went to the feds first? The next year will be interesting ... Thought from folks in the GTA? Even like to hear from PJSoul, BC has plenty of dispensaries, have just started cracking down and regulating.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i think legalization is the way to go anyways so - not sure I would call this a problem ...
I support legalization 100%, I would say in many ways it's almost legal now ... A doctors script is all one needs to avoid being hassled.
And I believe Wynn has said cities have to develop their own regulation covering these shops.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
The PM who runs your country and will be instrumental in how to fix the problem shows up and it means squat to you?
I gotta tell you, that is modern logic. Would it mean the same if it was Justin Beiber? Because I hate to tell you this, but a lot of those people don't give a fuck about Eddie either.
Difference is, Trudeau is everyone's PM
I'm not saying "high five people". I feel like I am talking to a twelve year old the way you put words in my mouth
He should be there to give them hope you cheeky bastard. You have no fucking idea what those people are going through and neither does Trudeau. His job is to SERVE Canadians. What is more important than these people who suddenly have no home?
Your lack of compassion is sickening, and so is Trudeau's. All politicians are assholes, but he really takes the cake by not doing the right thing.
You're the most transparent routine poster on this forum (in my 12 year old opinion).
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I actually haven't criticized Trudeau once since he was elected. Of course some of his asinine campaign promises are being re-thought, like mail delivery to your home and whatnot, but overall I think he's doing ok.
I think he should be here, you don't. I'm ok with that, just don't misconstrue my reasoning. I actually condemns Harper for going to Kelowna (and did again five posts ago).
And I don't watch hockey so I am not sure how the Edmonton Oilers come into this.... Weird.
And I thank you for the compliment, as I have nothing to hide and am consistent in my well thought out beliefs and opinions
I still think Trudeau should be visiting the evacuees, I have yet to hear a good reason why he shouldn't or how the media hasn't taken him to task for it. Instead it's just noise.
How is this so difficult? Now it's just comical
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I have no affiliation to any party. Federally or provincially. How could I be partisan?
Objectivity is a noun that means a lack of bias, judgment, or prejudice. Maintaining one's objectivity is the most important job of a judge. The meaning of objectivity is easy to remember, when you see that the word "object" embedded within it.
I would contend I am far more objective than the regressive, hardcore enviro left who believes the oil should be "left in the ground". How is that objective or practicable? I actually work in environment.
But, those folks who chain themselves to trees serve a purpose I guess. To each their own.
I sleep well at night
"He is very late": PM Trudeau visited #ymm Friday, but some evacuees say his trip should have come sooner #ymmfire
Hmmmmmm.... I wonder whose opinion matters more.
He came too late. I wonder if he wore the right color shirt?
Do you think Trudeau gave some good high fives and remedied the evacuees of their sorrow? You're the Canadian version of the US Obama blamers... and I didn't think we had those types up here. Good job!
In an earlier exchange, didn't you become indignant when I suggested, ultimately, Trudeau's visit will amount to high fives... yet you feel free to employ similar tactics to make your points (like mocking environmental activists as 'people who chain themselves to trees')?
If you were objective, you would see the value in concerning yourself with the environment as well as recognizing the dependence and consumption patterns of society. You wouldn't spend your time apologizing for the oil industry just as you wouldn't spend your time mocking activists and, for that matter, people on this board.
* Cue nauseating reply with intertwined insults and boasts.
Obama came to WA about a month later when it was appropriate.
Prior to his visit... he supported response measures and offered words of encouragement. I might be mistaken, but he was not heavily criticized for the timing of his visit. When making US/Canada comparisons with regards to leadership response to disaster, it might be useful to point out this example: even Obama's legion of haters understood there was only so much he could do physically and refrained from bashing him despite that being part time hobbies for many.
Blaming Trudeau for not getting there the moment it happened is, quite frankly, juvenile and, goes without saying, opportunistic for those in the full or part time practice of bashing him.
Thirty, I don't care if you agree with me or not. I don't care about my or your politics.
I care about the evacuees. They wanted to see the PM, he didn't go see them. That's his problem.
There are no votes for him in Fort Mac, so he doesn't really have to worry about what people there think, but I would have gone to talk to the evacuees.
I have not been critical of the different levels of government handling of the disaster. In fact, friends of mine on the front line have said its been fantastic. Credit is given where credit is due.
I see no need to make this out to anything more than a mistake he made
You guys will fall all over yourselves to defend the guy. I merely asked a question which no one could (or will) answer. Why did he not go to see the evacuees (instead he did a guided tour of the disaster area like he was in Banff) and why did the media not (at least) question this decision?
You instead simply attacked me
Do your job I say. I think Trudeau didn't in this case. The love affair continues haha
Your comment standing alone would be quite fair; however, let's not forget the entire context from which it originated.
You've been hypercritical and disrespectful to say the least for the guy prior to him even being elected. You even felt it necessary to anoint him an idiot it 'the idiot thread'. Therefore, you'll have to excuse many of us for not regarding your case as one with much legitimacy- it just seems like yet another attempt to try and paint the PM as a dolt.
It's not a case of anyone being in love with the guy as much as it is a case of people tiring of the unwarranted criticism.
Disregarding the body of work you have produced portraying Trudeau as a buffoon... I can accept the fact that you feel he should have been more accessible. How about you accept the fact that I (and others) feel he acted reasonably?
And then we move on.
It is a nice gesture that all donations will be matched by the federal govt.
Outside of that goofy grin he has when dealing with really serious issues, I think he has done a fair job. He has some good advisors for sure. I'm still not a fan of the new tax scheme. Creating a "strong middle class" should involve lifting the poor up not dragging the people who clawed their way out of the middle with hard work back in.
Creating a strong middle class is this confounding Canadian belief in mediocrity. It's ok to be average, just not in hockey for some odd reason, where hard work and passion is lauded.
I said, the front line workers have received great resources. The Feds have matched the donations to the Red Cross with our tax dollars. He should have visited the evacuees.
Trudeau in the idiot thread? That was comedy
But like the Fort Mac thread, I think I'm done here. It was fun for a while, but it is just waaaay to one-sided around here. No hard feelings and Cheers!
I like this statement: Creating a "strong middle class" should involve lifting the poor up not dragging the people who clawed their way out of the middle with hard work back in.
That statement isn't too far off.
When the middle class is constantly changing what qualifies to be in it others choose not to be.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon