Canadian Politics Redux

1ThoughtKnown

^^^
Wow. The evacuees aren't fighting the fires.
Go see the PEOPLE.

Does anyone read anymore?

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1ThoughtKnown said:

^^^
Wow. The evacuees aren't fighting the fires.
Go see the PEOPLE.

Does anyone read anymore?

I know.

I was saying that Trudeau appearing on the scene like GWB in the jet fighter pilot's garb would likely have irritated you. Wouldn't you have made some comment regarding him 'pouncing on the misfortunes of the Albertans' for a photo opportunity? He can't win with you no matter what he does.

That's a fair thing to say... given your obvious disdain for him... isn't it?

Edit: I'm not trying to rile you up, man. I'm just stating what I felt needed to be stated. I think the situation is horrific. If my home was burnt down and I was sleeping in my truck with my family in some parking lot... Trudeau's presence or absence would mean nothing to me.

1ThoughtKnown

Listen, you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

If you would have read what I said about Notley. You would realize everything you are saying is rubbish.

Once again, Bush got flack. Trudeau gets a pass. I notice when things are different and note it.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1ThoughtKnown said:

Listen, you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

If you would have read what I said about Notley. You would realize everything you are saying is rubbish.

Once again, Bush got flack. Trudeau gets a pass. I notice when things are different and note it.

For a guy that habitually made reference to Trudeau playing it up for the cameras and smiling for the cameras... you'll have to excuse me for making assumptions.

This event isn't even over yet. I know you are eager, but how about we judge Trudeau once it is?

1ThoughtKnown

^^^^

Once again, you continue to badger me about "giving the guys chance".

How does Bush get lambasted for not heading straight to New Orleans after Katrina and Trudeau get a pass for not visiting the evacuees? No one has given me an answer!

This has nothing to do with my opinion of Trudeau. It is an outside observation into the political arena.

Whether you or I think he should be there or not is irrelevant, the only people that's opinions matter would be the evacuees themselves. If I put myself in the position of an evacuee, and I am sleeping in a curling rink in Lac la Biche with my wife and two kids and the PM walks in and gives me personal reassurance that things will get back to normal, it makes my day.
That he took the time to come and understand the plight would lift the spirits of people.

I would not accuse him of "photo-op" politics here. Notley is on TV everyday and I applauded her for her handling of a delicate situation so far.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

If you're hell bent on being critical then fly at it- it's hardly surprising.

lukin2006

Why does every event have to involve politics. What difference would it make if the PM showed up? Likely none, the PM might be more a hinderance than help at this stage ... he's doing whats he's suppose to do ... and that is provide federal assistance, he does not need to be in Alberta to do that. The way I see it is that the local officials evacuated 80000 people on short notice, got them to shelters ... it appears under the circumstances not much more could have be done.

The people of Fort Mac and all emergency workers should be proud ... with the exception of the traffic accident that had 2 fatalities everyone got out safely.

And no need to ever compare our response to a disaster to what has gone on in the states.

PJ_Soul

1ThoughtKnown said:

Listen, you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

If you would have read what I said about Notley. You would realize everything you are saying is rubbish.

Once again, Bush got flack. Trudeau gets a pass. I notice when things are different and note it.

Who gives a shit what people said about Bush 11 years ago? Why are you harping on about that? In case you forgot, American were being whiny bitches about that, not Canadians. And in the end, what mattered was the people there getting HELP. Not the people there getting waved at by the idiot GW. The real story there that created all the rage was a terrible and very slow response by FEMA, not Bush's timing for flying around in a helicopter.
Trudeau's decision is fine. Also, what his presence would bring is WAY different than what Bush would have brought with him. Trudeau creates media swarms right now, which was not even close to the case with Bush at that time. His presence right now would not at all helpful to a moving emergency. Get over it dude, no one cares because it's not meaningful to what actually matters right now. I'm personally happier with Trudeau working to provide aid and funding in this emergency, which he's doing. I don't give a shit where he's doing it from.

PJfanwillneverleave1

Well this is great news from my home province, hope others follow. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/saskatchewan-hospitals-visiting-hours-1.3577686

(plus another chance to say Pearl Jam PLAY REGINA)!

1ThoughtKnown

PJ_Soul said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Listen, you are making a bunch of assumptions here.

If you would have read what I said about Notley. You would realize everything you are saying is rubbish.

Once again, Bush got flack. Trudeau gets a pass. I notice when things are different and note it.

Who gives a shit what people said about Bush 11 years ago? Why are you harping on about that? In case you forgot, American were being whiny bitches about that, not Canadians. And in the end, what mattered was the people there getting HELP. Not the people there getting waved at by the idiot GW. The real story there that created all the rage was a terrible and very slow response by FEMA, not Bush's timing for flying around in a helicopter.
Trudeau's decision is fine. Also, what his presence would bring is WAY different than what Bush would have brought with him. Trudeau creates media swarms right now, which was not even close to the case with Bush at that time. His presence right now would not at all helpful to a moving emergency. Get over it dude, no one cares because it's not meaningful to what actually matters right now. I'm personally happier with Trudeau working to provide aid and funding in this emergency, which he's doing. I don't give a shit where he's doing it from.

That is the sentiment of most people. Just wondering why.

So to recap you think Americans are "whiny bitches" and that Bush did not receive flack for not going to New Orleans Ina timely fashion from the Canadian media.

You are also fine with Trudeau's decision to not go to Fort Mac. I agree, I didn't want him anywhere near Fort Mac. Notley was doing a fine job.

I wanted him to visit the EVACUEES (for the seemingly hundredth time). They weren't in Fort Mac, in case you weren't paying attention. They were in a curling rink in Lac La Biche and centres in Edmonton and Calgary.

Since you consider yourself to be such a caring individual, I ask again, if you were in the Lac La Biche curling rink watching the news of your city's disaster, would it have not made your day and made you feel better to see the PM walk in? Maybe answer some questions, provide leadership.

You ask why I keep harping on an observation I made, question should be why do you keep defending him without ever commenting on the reasons I think he should have went? I don't want him to grab a hose and fight the fire, I want him to be the PM. Harper got flack for visiting the firefighters in Kelowna (rightfully so) when he should have just had a coffee with the evacuees.

And my oh my such hostility. I guess you just don't see the theatre of politics the same way I do.
I am trained to examine things, and when I see something different I have to ask why. I must investigate

1ThoughtKnown

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

If you're hell bent on being critical then fly at it- it's hardly surprising.

lukin2006 said:

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.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

If you're hell bent on being critical then fly at it- it's hardly surprising.

lukin2006 said:

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.

lukin2006

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

If you're hell bent on being critical then fly at it- it's hardly surprising.

lukin2006 said:

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.

lukin2006

1ThoughtKnown said:

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

If you're hell bent on being critical then fly at it- it's hardly surprising.

lukin2006 said:

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.

polaris_x

from ... https://ca.news.yahoo.com/feds-strike-special-cabinet-committee-co-ordinate-fort-175048270.html

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.

lukin2006

Medical pot shop gets surprise visitor — Mayor John Tory

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.

polaris_x

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 ...

lukin2006

polaris_x said:

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.

PJ_Soul

I don't have any hostility btw, lol.

PJ_Soul

lukin2006 said:

polaris_x said:

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.