Support NeoGAF

[matthewwhatever]

I forgot that Eve Adams had that weird nomination fight. I guess the cynic would say that this is politically convenient.

And her fiance is the CPC's former Executive Director! That's going to make for some pretty awkward dinners.

 

[gutter_trash]

she is a spy sent to tap into the Liberals election war room

 

[matthewwhatever]

she is a spy sent to tap into the Liberals election war room

A reverse David Emerson, eh?

 

[gutter_trash]

A reverse David Emerson, eh?

pretty much, lol.

 

[equippedwithtowel]

There was a cabinet reshuffle this morning as well...
Poilievre to Employment + head of the NCC

God help us all.

 

[BigJonsson]

Soudas is going to work with the Liberals too...interesting

 

[firehawk12]

Soudas is going to work with the Liberals too...interesting

lol

Anyone who thinks these two parties are different, well...

 

[matthewwhatever]

Soudas is going to work with the Liberals too...interesting

Nope, he's going to work on Adams' campaign. Or, as Trudeau's top aide says (and Soudas retweeted):

Conspiracy theories are fun. But @d_soudas role with LPC is to put up lawn signs on @mpeveadams campaign. That's it, that's all folks.

Also, anyone else terrified by the idea that Jason Kenney is now running our military? Not that it's that formidable, but Kenney is the last person I'd ever want having soldiers at his disposal.

 

[gutter_trash]

knowing that the Conservatives are unhappy about Soudas spilling the goods to Trudeau makes me happy

But seriously it comes off as opportunistic from Eve Adams.

 

[gabbo]

Nope, he's going to work on Adams' campaign. Or, as Trudeau's top aide says (and Soudas retweeted):




Also, anyone else terrified by the idea that Jason Kenney is now running our military? Not that it's that formidable, but Kenney is the last person I'd ever want having soldiers at his disposal.

Something about Pierre 'Fair Election Act Tar Baby' Poilievre on the Employment profile scares me more. At least Kenney (publicaly) seems to do and say whatever he wants, even if he is a douchebag on the whole.

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/sun-news-network-shutting-down-friday-nearly-200-lose-jobs-1.2234296

Sun News Network shutting down Friday, don't let that door slam your butt too hard Ezruh

 

[matthewwhatever]

Harper's Director of Communications is leaving, to be replaced by a former Mike Harris staffer. Nicol will be the 9th person to hold the position, so I guess it's not totally insane to have someone leaving (MacDonald had been in there for longer than average, since summer 2013), but still...parties confident in their reelection don't usually have prominent people leaving so close to said election.

 

[gutter_trash]

caption this


http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/13/heres-stephen-harper-loosening-up-his-image-in-quebec/

that video LOL too funny seeing him walk with Bonhomme

 

[gabbo]

caption this

Harper: High KICK

 

[S-Wind]

50th anniversary of our flag and the Harper Government does..... Nothing???

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

50th anniversary of our flag and the Harper Government does..... Nothing???

I remember he gave a really long ass speech in my old neighbourhood (Leaside... he grew up there) about how he really preferred the blue flag. Wouldn't surprise me if his pettiness got the better of him.

 

[matthewwhatever]

And it was a Liberal accomplishment. Can't recognize those!

 

[gutter_trash]

Harper is a devout monarchist (I have no idea why), of course he wouldn't want to celebrate our first flag that doesn't' have the Union Jack in the top corner anymore


Harper is not a real Canadian
----------

the more time goes, the more STUPID Justin gets. Instead of chosing his battles smartly, he reacts to wrong issues
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-questions-decision-to-appeal-niqab-ruling-1.2961262

Justin Trudeau questions decision to appeal niqab ruling
'Clear and compelling reason' needed to limit minority rights: Trudeau

Justin is turning out to be moronic, especially on this is issue of a woman wearing a niquab during Citizenship Ceremony refusing the show her face. Harper is appealing to the courts to have her show her face. Justin is defending Niquab woman.

Justin WTF, you are picking the wrong battles. I understand defending religious minorities is one thing but the niquab is extreme. If someone doesn't want to show their face during an oath of citzenship, then fuck off to them go back where you came from.

If Justin lose in October, it's all because he picked the wrong battles

 

[Azih]

I like JT way more now that he's coming out on the other side.

Gutter, just like Stephen Harper, not liking the niqab isn't a clear and compelling reason to restrict a right.

 

[gutter_trash]

I like JT way more now that he's coming out on the other side.

Gutter, just like Stephen Harper, not liking the niqab isn't a clear and compelling reason to restrict a right.

This is a citzen oath we are talking about under a covered face.

if you don't want to show your face for a drivers license, opening a bank accounts or a citzenship card.... how can you be a Participating member of society?

 

[Azih]

This is a citzen oath we are talking about under a covered face.

if you don't want to show your face for a drivers license, opening a bank accounts or a citzenship card.... how can you be a Participating member of society?

Opening bank accounts, getting driver's licenses, and getting citizenship cards kinda means you ARE being a participating member of society.

 

[gutter_trash]

Opening bank accounts, getting driver's licenses, and getting citizenship cards kinda means you ARE being a participating member of society.

refusing to take a picture for your citizenship card and during the oath means you are refusing to take part of society

 

[matthewwhatever]

It's really not, and suggestion that it is verges on the dogwhistle racism that this government has been specializing in lately.

Let me guess, you also think that those people arrested in Halifax for planning a Columbine-style massacre aren't really terrorists, just "misfits"?

 

[Azih]

refusing to take a picture for your citizenship card and during the oath means you are refusing to take part of society

This is only about during the oath. Don't think there's any mention of taking a picture for the card anywhere. And that's a... pretty specific rule for taking part in society that I was unaware of. That people who open bank accounts, get driver's licenses, go through the pretty long and difficult process of becoming a Canadian citizen etc. etc. are not considered to be a part of society by you and Stephen Harper says a lot more about you two guys then anybody else I think.

 

[DopeyFish]

Who cares what people wear during the ceremony? You become Canadian to taste freedom and get slapped with such a petty requirement such as that?

 

[Stumpokapow]

refusing to take a picture for your citizenship card and during the oath means you are refusing to take part of society

Not only should people be able to wear what they want, when they want, I'll go further--I don't think immigrants should have to take public oaths at all and if I had to do so to keep my birthright citizenship, I'd be considering going stateless. My identity and my commitment to a country is not and should not be subject to testing or hoop-jumping, and that's a privilege I'd like to extend to my fellow Canadians, reagrdless of how they became Canadian.

I'd also add that I find submitting to a checklist of shared values to gain citizenship rights is pretty odious to begin with.

This kind of stuff is up there with accusing dual citizens of disloyalty on the list of paranoid things nationalists do to make themselves feel more comfortable knowing they're safe in their fortress.

*shrugs*

 

[Mr.Mike]

Not only should people be able to wear what they want, when they want, I'll go further--I don't think immigrants should have to take public oaths at all and if I had to do so to keep my birthright citizenship, I'd be considering going stateless. My identity and my commitment to a country is not and should not be subject to testing or hoop-jumping, and that's a privilege I'd like to extend to my fellow Canadians, reagrdless of how they became Canadian.

I'd also add that I find submitting to a checklist of shared values to gain citizenship rights is pretty odious to begin with.

This kind of stuff is up there with accusing dual citizens of disloyalty on the list of paranoid things nationalists do to make themselves feel more comfortable knowing they're safe in their fortress.

*shrugs*

Anecdotal, but I have a fried with an Irish grandma who's lived here for a long time but refuses to swear an oath to the Queen, and as such doesn't have citizenship.

 

[matthewwhatever]

Not only should people be able to wear what they want, when they want, I'll go further--I don't think immigrants should have to take public oaths at all and if I had to do so to keep my birthright citizenship, I'd be considering going stateless. My identity and my commitment to a country is not and should not be subject to testing or hoop-jumping, and that's a privilege I'd like to extend to my fellow Canadians, reagrdless of how they became Canadian.

I'd also add that I find submitting to a checklist of shared values to gain citizenship rights is pretty odious to begin with.

This kind of stuff is up there with accusing dual citizens of disloyalty on the list of paranoid things nationalists do to make themselves feel more comfortable knowing they're safe in their fortress.

I feel like this could be the basis of a "Stump: He didn't come back for you" ad thirty years from now.


Seriously, though, it's hard to see how the Cons are being anything but straight-up racist by doing this. I personally don't see anything wrong with a public citizenship ceremony, since I imagine for most new citizens it'd be a point of pride, but making a big deal about what they're wearing during that ceremony is very clearly race-baiting, especially when they're doing it as part of a fundraising letter to the troglodytes that make up the CPC base. I'd be appalled if the Liberals weren't calling them out on it.

 

[gabbo]

It's really not, and suggestion that it is verges on the dogwhistle racism that this government has been specializing in lately.

Let me guess, you also think that those people arrested in Halifax for planning a Columbine-style massacre aren't really terrorists, just "misfits"?

Terrorists, no, but more than a misfit certainly. Just as I wouldn't call the original Columbine killers terrorists. But this is neither here nor there

I'm not sure how I feel about the issue being discussed, since I'm pretty hardline on a lot of public service vs personal rights issue (doctors vs abortion, religious symbols/clothing and public servants)

 

[You Are Viewtiful]

Anecdotal, but I have a fried with an Irish grandma who's lived here for a long time but refuses to swear an oath to the Queen, and as such doesn't have citizenship.

Wow, I never thought about that situation. I thought it was a bunch of Quebec whiners. It should definitely be optional.

 

[gutter_trash]

Wow, I never thought about that situation. I thought it was a bunch of Quebec whiners. It should definitely be optional.

in 2015, the oath should not be optional due to personal beliefs. If you have personal beliefs that are not compatible with Canada, then just don't immigrate to Canada.

If it is a debate about the monarchy, then yeah we should modernize Canada to severe its ties to the Queen but that's a debate for another day...... if anyone cares

but the oath, as an immigrant myself, the oath you fuckin' say it or else not citizenship for you,

it's 2015 yo, want in? okay, say the oath and show your face.

Natural born citizens don't do the oath because they are natural born. Born into citizenship

 

[Stumpokapow]

If it is a debate about the monarchy, then yeah we should modernize Canada to severe its ties to the Queen but that's a debate for another day...... if anyone cares

Sounds like you have personal beliefs incompatible with Canada, so I have to ask you--why did you immigrate there?

 

[gutter_trash]

Sounds like you have personal beliefs incompatible with Canada, so I have to ask you--why did you immigrate there?

I don't care much about the monarchy, if I had a choice I would do away with it for financial and modernization reasons but it is not an important issue ideologically.

it's not a game changer, but i do find it amusing that Harper does have a big hard on for them. It's like if 1982 never happened

I was 4 years old mind you

 

[Stumpokapow]

I don't care much about the monarchy, if I had a choice I would do away with it for financial and modernization reasons but it is not an important issue ideologically.

So, sorry, the new standard is that you can have beliefs incompatible with Canada as long as they're less important to you? In other words, anyone who feels strongly about getting rid of the monarchy shouldn't be a citizen?

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Sounds like you have personal beliefs incompatible with Canada, so I have to ask you--why did you immigrate there?

Wait, are you seriously suggesting that being pro-abolition of monarchy is "incompatible with Canada", or am I misunderstanding completely?

 

[matthewwhatever]

Stump can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's pointing out the incredible hypocrisy Gutter's displaying here: on one hand saying that he believes new Canadians shouldn't come here if they don't 100% accept everything in the citizenship oath, while at the same time saying that (as a republican) he doesn't even accept everything in the oath.

Terrorists, no, but more than a misfit certainly. Just as I wouldn't call the original Columbine killers terrorists. But this is neither here nor there

It is, though. The Conservative constantly portray Zihaf-Bibeau and Rouleau as radical terrorists, symbols of some barbarian invasion waiting just beyond our borders. Yet these four people -- who wanted to kill a lot more people than Rouleau or Zihaf-Bibeau were aiming for -- are basically hand-waved away by Mackay, who refused to call it a terrorist plot while pivoting to the dangers of people being radicalized by ISIS. And don't forget, this is just a few weeks after the PM himself very specifically singled out mosques as being breeding grounds for terrorism. Between that and this whole niqab/hijab thing, it seems pretty clear what the underlying message is...

 

[gutter_trash]

So, sorry, the new standard is that you can have beliefs incompatible with Canada as long as they're less important to you? In other words, anyone who feels strongly about getting rid of the monarchy shouldn't be a citizen?

oh man, the monarchy is not the issue, it's a side show.

the issue is the oath, it doesn't matter if it is Santa Clause or the Queen of England.

An oath is an oath no matter whatever pre-determined sentence is on it.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

Stump can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he's pointing out the incredible hypocrisy Gutter's displaying here: on one hand saying that he believes new Canadians shouldn't come here if they don't 100% accept everything in the citizenship oath, while at the same time saying that (as a republican) he doesn't even accept everything in the oath.

Ohhh, I get it. I tend to skim over gutter's posts (no offense...) so I missed some context... sorry Stump. ^^

 

[S-Wind]

Anecdotal, but I have a fried with an Irish grandma who's lived here for a long time but refuses to swear an oath to the Queen, and as such doesn't have citizenship.

As someone who was not born in Canada but IS a Canadian citizen, I am so fucking glad that I never had to swear an oath to the queen, or to anyone for that matter!

 

[gabbo]

It is, though. The Conservative constantly portray Zihaf-Bibeau and Rouleau as radical terrorists, symbols of some barbarian invasion waiting just beyond our borders. Yet these four people -- who wanted to kill a lot more people than Rouleau or Zihaf-Bibeau were aiming for -- are basically hand-waved away by Mackay, who refused to call it a terrorist plot while pivoting to the dangers of people being radicalized by ISIS. And don't forget, this is just a few weeks after the PM himself very specifically singled out mosques as being breeding grounds for terrorism. Between that and this whole niqab/hijab thing, it seems pretty clear what the underlying message is...

I think I misread the statement I was originally responding to, or at least missed its place in the larger context. I still don't personally think they should be called 'terrorist', but I, unlike our government am not drawing that conclusion because their lack of brown skin colour and Islam as religion. The government is clearly drawing a line in the sand here, to drum up fear and thus support for C51

 

[Azih]

They're wedging hard and aiming the wedge at a targeted minority. With people like gutter_trash raging at the AUDACITY of a woman's choice of clothing during an oath taking ceremony you can see why the Cons are confident that they've hit on a winning "Fear The Muslim" strategy. It's disgusting but it's probably effective.

 

[matthewwhatever]

At least it'll end up killing the whole "Jason Kenney is a rock star in ethnic communities!" thing they've tried pushing. It's doubtful he is/was, but I can't imagine those few pockets of non-white communities that do vote Conservative are going to be too happy about being scapegoated like that.

 

[Azih]

At least it'll end up killing the whole "Jason Kenney is a rock star in ethnic communities!" thing they've tried pushing. It's doubtful he is/was, but I can't imagine those few pockets of non-white communities that do vote Conservative are going to be too happy about being scapegoated like that.

Only Muslims. Non Muslim minorities won't really care. There are some communities where this will be lauded (some in the Jewish community for example).

 

[matthewwhatever]

Ugh, seriously? I'd have hoped that, at the very least, Sikh communities would figure that that kind of implicit messaging is bad for them too. The people who buy into that messaging generally don't differentiate much beyond "brown skin=terrorist!!!"

 

[Azih]

Ugh, seriously? I'd have hoped that, at the very least, Sikh communities would figure that that kind of implicit messaging is bad for them too. The people who buy into that messaging generally don't differentiate much beyond "brown skin=terrorist!!!"

For some, not many, but some, Sikhs there's a lot of historical bad blood towards Muslims. And even if there isn't the knee jerk reaction isn't to stand in solidarity with the other Minority group but to get more insular and complain "We aren't Muslims though. Go bother them!" The people who rise above this are the true heroes which is why intra community gestures (like the Muslim ring of peace protecting synagogues in Norway right now) are so absurdly noble... it's because they're not very common.

People remain people, whether they're minorities or not. The initial instinct is to withdraw and 'take care of your own'.

 

[gutter_trash]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pat...r-led-him-to-leave-seat-during-vote-1.2963294

Pat Martin says tight underwear led him to leave seat during vote
NDP MP from Winnipeg says he had to leave seat in House of Commons because he can't sit for long

time to laugh a little, video included

 

[Blackhead]

If Harper wins another election, I wonder how many people will consider leaving... still can't think of many places better than Canada though...

 

[gutter_trash]

If Harper wins another election, I wonder how many people will consider leaving... still can't think of many places better than Canada though...

where will you go? The US is still way more Conservative even with a Democrat President.
Europe is economically fucked

It's up to Justin Trudeau to wake up, stop talking about stupid things and started taking things serious and take on Harper where it hurts.... take on the real issue: The Economy Stupid.

 

[maharg]

where will you go? The US is still way more Conservative even with a Democrat President.

Please name some aspects of policy, other than gay marriage which stands decent chance of being legalized nationally when it gets to the supreme court this year, where this is the case. I dare you.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, the obvious one is that they will never have public healthcare.