You don't even have to get out of the market to take advantage. People's housing equity has absolutely exploded, and banks are incredibly eager to have people take advantage of that and get huge home equity lines of credit. People are leveraging their inflated housing values to take on new debt in order to renovate their homes, buy cars and do other things. All of this leads to job growth.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canadian PoliGAF - 42nd Parliament: Sunny Ways in Trudeaupia
- Thread starter matthewwhatever
- Start date
- Status
You don't even have to get out of the market to take advantage. People's housing equity has absolutely exploded, and banks are incredibly eager to have people take advantage of that and get huge home equity lines of credit. People are leveraging their inflated housing values to take on new debt in order to renovate their homes, buy cars and do other things. All of this leads to job growth.
matthewwhatever
Member
The vast majority of people complaining about Trudeau going to a gender-segregated mosque are also the Sun Media-types you cited about this story in the first place, who've been pushing the "Canadian values" screening the hardest. I have no doubt whatsoever that if Trudeau had said anything more than recognizing the "sisters upstairs," they'd be the ones screeching that Trudeau was trampling on the sanctity of religious belief, or some nonsense like that. So before you go accusing someone of intellectual dishonesty, maybe look at all these conservative trolls who suddenly care very deeply about fighting for the rights of women.
As for gutter, let's review his some of his more charming defenses of minority rights.
So if he's not a bigot, he's certainly bigot-adjacent.
Again (and again, and again), no one is defending gender segregation. And no religious beliefs (or lack thereof) should be immune from criticism. But attacking people right in the midst of one of their celebrations -- as you seem to wish Trudeau had done -- is probably not the way to win anyone over to your way of thinking, or to effect change in those communities. You may not like that fact, but if we want to have a multicultural, pluralistic -- and, yes, officially secular -- society, it means tolerating that some people hold beliefs different from yours.
gutter_trash
Banned
Whatever Maywrather,
I don't care much for religious beliefs, even my supposed own supposed to be Catholic one either.
Society doesn't need to segrogate swimming pool hours and ban women from entry at certain public events.
Liberalism should never take a knee to make exceptions for Ultra-Conservative components of various religions just for the sake of "religious inclusion"
The Catholic Church held my home country back, we were 85% illiterate in the 19th Century into the beginning of the 20th (thanks religion) I wouldn't trade one Conservative religion for another
That is the type of Liberal I am
Look at Edrogan and how he is dialling back Liberalism into religious Conservatism in the name of Religious Beliefs freedomz and swapped judges
I don't care much for religious beliefs, even my supposed own supposed to be Catholic one either.
Society doesn't need to segrogate swimming pool hours and ban women from entry at certain public events.
Liberalism should never take a knee to make exceptions for Ultra-Conservative components of various religions just for the sake of "religious inclusion"
The Catholic Church held my home country back, we were 85% illiterate in the 19th Century into the beginning of the 20th (thanks religion) I wouldn't trade one Conservative religion for another
That is the type of Liberal I am
Look at Edrogan and how he is dialling back Liberalism into religious Conservatism in the name of Religious Beliefs freedomz and swapped judges
Seeing as nobody's responding to my last post (which is honestly old hat. My post history is littered with threads that ended when people just stop engaging with me. I guess I treated them all as terribly(?) as I treated Stump)....
Here are the craziest things about all of this.
1. Firstly, it clearly demonstrates how hyper critiqued and besieged Muslims are in the Canadian media environment compared to every other community in Canada and how *normal* it has become that Muslims would be treated this way. We're not paranoid... we really are being rhetorically hounded and collectively judged constantly.
2. The constant rhetoric obviously bleeds over into worse actions by emboldened individuals.
3. We're getting hounded by people on both the right and the left and everybody seems to have settled on a temporary truce to go after a common enemy (us Muslims). You have places like the Sun playing six degrees of terrorist every time an elected official does a nice thing for us and anti-religion liberals pounding on the same officials for.... not demanding that an organization of mostly socially conservative minority individuals stop being socially conservative before they're a 'good minority' worthy of being visited. While other communities of mostly socially conservative peoples don't even get on the radar.
4. It takes a strongly principled man to stand up against this sort of blowback from all sides to say "No, I'm still going to visit Muslims on Eid". When it would be easier to shun us and treat us worse than everybody else (by say, just sending a rote PR note on Eid while every other community gets visited). I think Trudeau is that strong. We'll see next Ramadan and Eid-Ul-Fitr.
5. And here's the most insane part. Trudeau's visit to wish Muslims a Happy Eid in person wouldn't have budged the needle in a conservative direction on gender issues at all. If this whole wave of criticism hadn't occurred than the only thing... the ONLY thing that Trudeau's visit would have done would be to make us Muslims feel like an included, valued, accepted, and cherished part of the Canadian mosaic and made us feel safer than we felt before. Now it makes us feel even more embattled and besieged and picked apart and sneered at and derided and dismissed by a very significant portion of Canadians of all stripes.
Now of course for some context us Muslims are not treated as badly in Canada as the Aboriginal Peoples are. And the police treat Black Canadians far worse than the treat us (At this point I honestly don't know whether it's worse to be black or Muslim in Canada). So that's something. And Canada is by far the best place for us in the West. I can't say how grateful I am to SheepyGuy, Matthew, Oroichi, and even Boogie for their comments. Make me feel like I'm not dogpiled on CanadaGaf like I am in the clownshows that other threads about Muslims become here. I've retreated from even looking at those for my own sanity's sake.
Here are the craziest things about all of this.
1. Firstly, it clearly demonstrates how hyper critiqued and besieged Muslims are in the Canadian media environment compared to every other community in Canada and how *normal* it has become that Muslims would be treated this way. We're not paranoid... we really are being rhetorically hounded and collectively judged constantly.
2. The constant rhetoric obviously bleeds over into worse actions by emboldened individuals.
3. We're getting hounded by people on both the right and the left and everybody seems to have settled on a temporary truce to go after a common enemy (us Muslims). You have places like the Sun playing six degrees of terrorist every time an elected official does a nice thing for us and anti-religion liberals pounding on the same officials for.... not demanding that an organization of mostly socially conservative minority individuals stop being socially conservative before they're a 'good minority' worthy of being visited. While other communities of mostly socially conservative peoples don't even get on the radar.
4. It takes a strongly principled man to stand up against this sort of blowback from all sides to say "No, I'm still going to visit Muslims on Eid". When it would be easier to shun us and treat us worse than everybody else (by say, just sending a rote PR note on Eid while every other community gets visited). I think Trudeau is that strong. We'll see next Ramadan and Eid-Ul-Fitr.
5. And here's the most insane part. Trudeau's visit to wish Muslims a Happy Eid in person wouldn't have budged the needle in a conservative direction on gender issues at all. If this whole wave of criticism hadn't occurred than the only thing... the ONLY thing that Trudeau's visit would have done would be to make us Muslims feel like an included, valued, accepted, and cherished part of the Canadian mosaic and made us feel safer than we felt before. Now it makes us feel even more embattled and besieged and picked apart and sneered at and derided and dismissed by a very significant portion of Canadians of all stripes.
Now of course for some context us Muslims are not treated as badly in Canada as the Aboriginal Peoples are. And the police treat Black Canadians far worse than the treat us (At this point I honestly don't know whether it's worse to be black or Muslim in Canada). So that's something. And Canada is by far the best place for us in the West. I can't say how grateful I am to SheepyGuy, Matthew, Oroichi, and even Boogie for their comments. Make me feel like I'm not dogpiled on CanadaGaf like I am in the clownshows that other threads about Muslims become here. I've retreated from even looking at those for my own sanity's sake.
Prax
Member
Yeah, I think Trudeau's goodwill gesture is innocuous at worst and inviting and harmonizing at best if it weren't for all the "criticism" from suspiciously disingenuous people.
People criticizing it are generally concern trolling.
Morrigan's got the "wrong opinion" on this matter or is choosing some low hanging fruit to bite on.
Gutter's got his own personal brand of Canadian Nationalism spearheaded by the Liberals, so whatever he says or thinks will be cast in that light.
People criticizing it are generally concern trolling.
Morrigan's got the "wrong opinion" on this matter or is choosing some low hanging fruit to bite on.
Gutter's got his own personal brand of Canadian Nationalism spearheaded by the Liberals, so whatever he says or thinks will be cast in that light.
From the mosques I've attended over the past 15 years across the GTA, the common complaints from women are:
-improper entrances for women
-the need for larger prayer rooms/halls dedicated to women
-lack of sermons tailored specifically towards women, ideally from a female preacher
Praying alongside men isn't something that gets mentioned often, in fact, I can only recall 2 instances where women mentioned it and that was only because they wanted to make sure their sons were praying properly, lol
Praying at a mosque is not at all like praying at a church, where men and women can chill together on pews.
At mosques, people physically prostrate as they move through the various prayers, hence the segregation. It's one thing to pray at home together with family (male and female) and another thing entirely to prostrate oneself among members of the opposite sex who are mostly strangers at mosques.
Is there a credible data bank or survey that explicitly states a notable number of men and women want to pray alongside eachother at mosques?
-improper entrances for women
-the need for larger prayer rooms/halls dedicated to women
-lack of sermons tailored specifically towards women, ideally from a female preacher
Praying alongside men isn't something that gets mentioned often, in fact, I can only recall 2 instances where women mentioned it and that was only because they wanted to make sure their sons were praying properly, lol
Praying at a mosque is not at all like praying at a church, where men and women can chill together on pews.
At mosques, people physically prostrate as they move through the various prayers, hence the segregation. It's one thing to pray at home together with family (male and female) and another thing entirely to prostrate oneself among members of the opposite sex who are mostly strangers at mosques.
Is there a credible data bank or survey that explicitly states a notable number of men and women want to pray alongside eachother at mosques?
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
Yeah, I didn't bother because you turn everything into a persecution complex and tone policing. Which you have continued doing in this very post. And now you even managed to turn my not responding to you into something of a personal attack on you! Unsurprisingly, I am not interested in engaging with you any further on this. Not worth the headache.
Uh-huh...
Well that's cute. I love when people attribute motivations to me, even after I clearly laid them out explicitly before. Takes a special kind of bad faith to accomplish that.
It's not a complex if it actually happens as the attention the mosque got as opposed to the gurdwara clearly demonstrates. And I've got nothing against your tone. I do have something against your insistence on passing collective judgement though and in this case on your timing as well.
gutter_trash
Banned
Morrigan Stark, I understand you. Je te comprends
Should have called Le clan Panneton.
Mr. Giggles
Member
So.... Milk in bags.
I've seen some people snip one end to pour and others snip both ends...
Apparently snipping both ends helps, what about the other Canucks in this thread
I've seen some people snip one end to pour and others snip both ends...
Apparently snipping both ends helps, what about the other Canucks in this thread
killer rin
Member
Just one snip in the spout corner is good enough for me. Just have to make sure the hole isn't too small to be a trickle, and too large to be a milk-fall
I thought this was a regular thing for MPs to do?
And if thats the case, maybe it would be a good idea to take Tabris' idea and swap out the Govenor General and Prime Ministers residence with a highrise containing a bunch of condo's. Each MP gets their own apartment with the Ministers/GG getting penthouses at the top... They could even rent out the rooms during the Summer/Winter when parliament isn't in session.
Both ends. That way the bag doesn't implode from the back when you pour too much/have a smaller amount of milk left
One end. I don't really see the point of snipping both ends; if anything that seems like it'd make leaking easier.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
One end. WTF?
What on Earth are you talking about? I'm trying to imagine it and I just can't.
This is a thing? I'll stick to one end, thanks.
If I don't cut the back off as well, the empty part of the bag (after a few cups have been poured out already) tends to get sucked forward by what i assume is a build up of downward pressure when I got to pour another cup/glass of milk. Cutting the back doesnt allow the build up to occur (again, IMO).
My gimp interpretation:
But enough the derail, how about this:
Trudeau spoke at the UN to a less-than-packed house today, trying to get us back in the Security Council.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/justin-trudeau-un-general-assembly-1.3759656
And the CRTC said Big3 fibre lines must be accessible to smaller ISPs
http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/crtc-internet-small-isps-1.3770914
Wonder if this will be beneficial to customers at all, of if they'll make it unduly expensive for third party ISPs to access them
You must have an interesting way of pouring milk if your bags are imploding, lol
killer rin
Member
It's all about the small steps. You start by forcing carriers to share lines, then after a year of them inevidebly abusing the market with pricing, you then mandate rates to be near wholesale. Either way change happens, the only difference with this method is we hear less bitching from Robellus's lawyers than if we do everything all at once.
And if thats the case, maybe it would be a good idea to take Tabris' idea and swap out the Govenor General and Prime Ministers residence with a highrise containing a bunch of condo's. Each MP gets their own apartment with the Ministers/GG getting penthouses at the top... They could even rent out the rooms during the Summer/Winter when parliament isn't in session.
That's how it should be done. Yes! They don't even need to take trudeaus bus to work. They can just walk as it'll be built next to parliament
Prax
Member
I call it as I see it.
The people concern trolling are those who are disingenuous to begin with (iffy about women's rights in general, but WOW decide THIS is where they will SPEAK UP!!)
You were separated out as a different case. I get that this is an overall important cause for you, but it's something similar to being petty about it. Petty and tone deaf.
As for the PMO moving expense thing. Yikes. We should be given an expense breakdown for this kind of thing so we can judge the acceptability of them. I'm just trying to think about why such a move may be so expensive like if their home needs special modifications or something, but it still seems excessive because it's not transparent.
killer rin
Member
I've warmed up to the idea and I'm with you 100%. It would be super cool to have, and think of the money we could save in the long term if we used it to get rid of the $20,000+ expense claim that MP's and members of the Senate do every session
PumpkinSpice
Banned
I don't know that I'd like having MPs even more out of touch with reality.
Maybe we could just force them to take OCTranspo into Parliament. A little social mixing would be good.
killer rin
Member
At the least it would help incentivize them to increase funding to transit systems country wide.
Morrigan Stark
Arrogant Smirk
SMH...
122k and 80k for the chief of staff and the principal secretary of Trudeau. Don't know yet which one spent 122k.
I guess they just followed the example set by their boss. Spend like drunken sailors.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...over-200000-for-moving-homes/article31995512/
I guess they just followed the example set by their boss. Spend like drunken sailors.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...over-200000-for-moving-homes/article31995512/
Seems like they didn't learn anything from good old Bev Oda. I tell you, that glass of orange juice should cause anyone in politics to reflect their spending (and the meaning of life!).
Mr. Giggles
Member
TheRealTalker
Banned
Can anyone explain to me this whole China thing happening right now in the news?
I mean I know it is multiple things but is it some business/trade deal, or is it only about those rich Chinese people, illegally stealing money and placing it offshore?
is it both and more?
what is going on?
I mean I know it is multiple things but is it some business/trade deal, or is it only about those rich Chinese people, illegally stealing money and placing it offshore?
is it both and more?
what is going on?
matthewwhatever
Member
Between selling a million dollar+ house in Toronto and buying a house in downtown Ottawa, real estate fees, legal fees and the land transfer tax, I could see costs racking up pretty quickly. Of course, that brings up this issue:
Which is that even if it's all legit and above-board, the optics of it make it much harder to explain.
...like, the Chinese premier visiting Canada for a state visit? Is that what you mean by "this whole China thing"?
And are you combining that news story with this one about offshore banking?
TheRealTalker
Banned
I guess it is just a ton of China news stacking up with each other like this
China agrees to maintain Canada's access to $2B canola market through 2020
Chris Alexander is running for the Tory leadership, according to a source. So Leitch won't have the xenophobe vote to herself.
And, in one of the weirder stories of late, Maryam Monsef apparently was born in Iran, not Afghanistan, which she herself just learned on Thursday. Mom had apparently been simplifying the family's history of movement for the kids.
And, in one of the weirder stories of late, Maryam Monsef apparently was born in Iran, not Afghanistan, which she herself just learned on Thursday. Mom had apparently been simplifying the family's history of movement for the kids.
This story is probably getting tongues wagging, but personally all I think of is the episode of King of the Hill when Hank learns he was born in New York City.
The Tory leadership field really feels like it's primed for somebody to come out of nowhere and completely reshape the game, given how staid it feels, but I'm not sure where such a person might come from.
The NDP has the opposite issue. Usually when you stab Caesar, there's at least one would-be successor amongst the assassins, but here they seem to have pushed Mulcair out without anybody wanting to take his place.
The NDP has the opposite issue. Usually when you stab Caesar, there's at least one would-be successor amongst the assassins, but here they seem to have pushed Mulcair out without anybody wanting to take his place.
Your analogy is more apt that you realize, because the conspiracy to murder Caesar lacked one of those too (let alone a transition plan).
It's a little bit more than that. What was the place of birth listed on her immigration papers?
Dumb thing is it doesn't matter at all what side of the border you're born on if you're an Afghani refugee. Either on the east or the west. You're still Afghani.
Received an inquiry from my Conservative MP about holding a referendum for electoral reform. I sent him back "no" with a note that if there is one, it should be about how we do it (what system), not whether we should do it. What's the general consensus around here on that issue?
My opinion is that the law enacting a new electoral system should 'require' a referendum after one or two election cycles using it to decide whether to stick or not. Doing a referendum in advance will just lead to FUD, in spite of there being plenty of real world examples to draw from in how PR-type systems work out just fine (with a couple of notable exceptions).
That is, unless the libs intend to choose ranked ballots with no other changes. Then I'm ok with a referendum skunking it because a minor change in the status quo will defer moving to the right answer by longer than not changing at all.
That is, unless the libs intend to choose ranked ballots with no other changes. Then I'm ok with a referendum skunking it because a minor change in the status quo will defer moving to the right answer by longer than not changing at all.
matthewwhatever
Member
Yep, she even makes this point -- that she and her family weren't eligible to become Iranian citizens because of their background. Does that mean she came to Canada stateless? If so, that makes her story even more impressive.
Lisa Raitt probably could've jumped in as the new frontrunner, but with the terrible news about her husband earlier this week, I can't imagine she'd be in any kind of place to go for it. I don't think she would've substantially shaken things up like you're describing, but probably would've destroyed everyone else in the field.
I think Michelle Rempel would be interesting. She's too young (some young CPCers in my Political Management program jumped to that immediately when I brought her name up), but I think she'd definitely shake things up. She's a little too partisan for my tastes, but she's also not afraid to call out conservatives for acting stupid. If CPC members are looking at the leadership race as the first step in a 8-year process of getting back to power, then she'd be better equipped than anyone currently running, other than *maybe* Michael Chong.
As for the NDP side...who knows. The whole thing is just a farce. Mulcair should've stepped down right after the election, or, failing that, at the Convention once it became clear he was going to lose the leadership review. The people trying to oust him should've coordinated a little better, and had a plan for what to do in the event they were successful. There's room right now for someone -- anyone, really -- to jump in and become the de facto frontrunner, but I have no idea who that might be, because no one seems to want to be first.
No chance. He's a buffoon, and he's not interested in doing the work necessary to win. Whatever bump he'd get from name recognition would be more than negated by the fact he has no team in place, which means no fundraising apparatus, and which also means he hasn't been signing up members. He may generate headlines, but he'd get destroyed come voting time.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...x-marriage-christian-leaders/article32008889/
He's either a lying flip flopper to his base or a lying flip flopper to undecided voters, you decided.
He's either a lying flip flopper to his base or a lying flip flopper to undecided voters, you decided.
Seems like he's trying to play both sides, but doesn't quite have the gall or media savvy to get away with it. Now it just seems like he has positions by committee, his answer will depend on who is in the room; with nothing substantive of his own.
I'll say this about Tim "White Paper" Hudak - I didn't like his positions on anything, but at least he was able to take a position on issues and stick to it.
I'm not crazy about electoral reform. Sure, we end up with these strong majorities that can widely mandate massive changes in policy, but that's not always a bad thing. Gay marriage? Legal. Penny? Gone. Constitution? Here. You can get shit done with a majority. And it's traditionally been very hard for a party in power to wield power too strongly. The PCs and Grits are regularly dismantled at the ends of their terms.
I see more proportionally representative systems in Europe and all it ends up being is the main parties being fractured (minority governments in Canada are tolerable only in the sense that parties play nice enough knowing that a majority will be their reward -why remove than incentive?) and some fascist nationalist party getting 10%.
Afghanistan doesn't practice Jus Soli, and Iran does only in a limited form.
So she's 100% Afghani according to all international law. The law in most of the world is different than in the Americas where your citizenship is determined by your place of birth. In the rest of the world it's determined by your parentage.
Her mother probably never even thought of citizenship being granted through Jus Soli until she came over to Canada.
I see more proportionally representative systems in Europe and all it ends up being is the main parties being fractured (minority governments in Canada are tolerable only in the sense that parties play nice enough knowing that a majority will be their reward -why remove than incentive?) and some fascist nationalist party getting 10%.
Afghanistan doesn't practice Jus Soli, and Iran does only in a limited form.
So she's 100% Afghani according to all international law. The law in most of the world is different than in the Americas where your citizenship is determined by your place of birth. In the rest of the world it's determined by your parentage.
Her mother probably never even thought of citizenship being granted through Jus Soli until she came over to Canada.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked