Mingan on 16/8/2011 at 03:30
Quote Posted by Nicker
We have legislation and regulation that has pretty much the same effect as the ADA in Canada, shored up with the (
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/) Charter Of Rights And Freedoms.
The trouble is these apply to citizens, landed immigrants and, in a general sense visitors. People with serious health issues are unlikely to be approved for immigration, and a Charter argument would likely not apply.
Like Azaran said, Canada is not exactly the liberal haven it was a decade ago. And we have no term limits on the Grande Fromage here.
I suppose my OP was a bit of pot - kettle - black, then.
Or I could blame eight years of Shrubbish lunacy for infecting our zeitgeist.
Thank you all for your various perspectives. From the outside, the American electoral process is arcane yet fascinating, in a car crash sort of way.
A hearing disablility shouldn't be ground for rejection on an immigration entry, especially if said immigrant has valuable job skills. Moreover, the current administration has A THING for Americans, so I can imagine them falling over themselves for such applicants.
SubJeff on 16/8/2011 at 06:15
What about douchebaggery?
I kid I kid
CCCToad on 16/8/2011 at 09:07
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
I just wish RBJ and CCCToad would mutually ignore each other (in the "ignore button" sense). No offense, guys, but it tends to take every single one of these threads off the rails.
You know, it has been amusing so far but I'm tired of it. Plus, I've learned what I needed to through these interactions.
I'm agreeable to it.
Rug Burn Junky on 16/8/2011 at 12:26
Which you know is bullshit, since I've begged you to stfu with almost every post. All you've ever had to do was stop saying stupid shit to me, and I've said I won't give a shit about you to say anything to you in the first place. I highly douibt you'll actually shut the fuck up now just because Aero asked nicely.
Quote Posted by Aerothorn
I just wish RBJ and CCCToad would mutually ignore each other (in the "ignore button" sense). No offense, guys, but it tends to take every single one of these threads off the rails.
I actually do agree, and I've long since thought he's gone beyond tedious, and I would love nothing more than to not have to deal with him and constantly put him in his place. I don't like that I continually inflict this on everyone else, which is why I generally don't engage him first* (even when he's begging extra hard in his passive aggressive way for my attention, as (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136527&p=2083239&viewfull=1#post2083239) here) unless he's said something extra egregiously wrong, or more commonly, he specifically responds to something I say with his usual douchebaggery.
I'm conscious of it, Aero, and I will continue to generally ignore him in general , but when he goes out of his way to say stupid shit
to me, I'm going to respond. If he can keep his mouth shut and not try to get his dander up and go out of his way to show his stupidity by challenging everything I say, I'll continue to ignore him like the piece of shit that he is. Somehow, I doubt he'll be able to. The chip on his shoulder has grown so large that he has a pathological need to try to prove me wrong, no matter how many times he fails.
At least one of us is being honest.
*With the one recent (
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=136497&p=2081796&viewfull=1#post2081796) exception, which, let's face it, I'm not wrong about.
CCCToad on 16/8/2011 at 21:43
I'll do it just as soon as you demonstrate that you are capable of writing a single post towards me that lacks adolescent obscenity hurling.
To the other post: it really doesn't have anything to do with you personally, though your reaction is rather typical of the grandiosity that the entire "Wall Street Class" regularly exhibits. My resentment towards them has nothing to do with you personally. I've stated it a couple times and won't repeat myself on that count. For you, its a shame really. You're talented enough that you could have stood up and made a difference in whats happening, but instead you've chosen to aid and abet in what is possibly the greatest scam of modern history. And you still have the gall to complain about Right wingers destroying the economy. Its true, but more than a bit hypocritical when the damage they caused was due to their subservience to your employer's interests.
So, I'm not really sure that you have any standing at all to criticize the establishment GOP when both of you work for the same cause: to enrich the people who are responsible for America's current misery.
also, SD: Its not quite on par with your Palin picture, but here's a portrait of Romney I think you'd like:
Inline Image:
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6127/5955027464_a5d1fcf533.jpgCCCToad on 16/8/2011 at 22:02
Another post, but as usual Greenwald nails it. The entire article is worth a read, whether or not you agree with him.
from: (
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/08/16/elections/index.html) Salon
Quote:
However much progressives find Paul's anti-choice views to be disqualifying (even if the same standard is not applied to Good Democrats Harry Reid or Bob Casey), and even as much as Paul's domestic policies are anathema to liberals (the way numerous positions of Barack Obama ostensibly are: war escalation, due-process-free assassinations, entitlement cuts, and whistleblower wars anyone?), shouldn't progressives be eager to have included in the discourse many of the views Paul uniquely advocates? After all, these are critical, not ancillary, positions, such as: genuine opposition to imperialism and wars; warnings about the excesses of the Surveillance State, executive power encroachments, and civil liberties assaults; and attacks on the one policy that is most responsible for the unjustifiable imprisonment of huge numbers of minorities and poor and the destruction of their families and communities: Drug Prohibition and the accompanying War to enforce it.
GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior.Rug Burn Junky on 16/8/2011 at 22:20
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I'll do it just as soon as you demonstrate that you are capable of writing a single post towards me that lacks adolescent obscenity hurling.
Earn it, motherfucker.
Aerothorn on 16/8/2011 at 22:33
I'm not familiar with Greenwald, but your bolded point is an exaggerated binary. It should properly read:
"A minority of GOP primary voters are supporting a committed anti-war, anti-surveillance candidate who wants to stop imprisoning people (dispropriationately minorities) for drug usage; Many Democrats, by contrast, are cheering for a war-escalating, drone-attacking, surveillance-and-secrecy-obsessed drug warrior." It's not completely without merit, but it's de-emphasizing the degree to which Obama's base is pissed off at him for these very issues, and grossly overemphasizing the pull that Ron Paul is getting.
To put it another way: Ron Paul will not win the primaries. He will not come anywhere close to getting a majority of votes. The views you mentioned are not being carried by any of the other GOP candidates. He is an outlier, and the fact that he draws some support merely shows that there is still a dedicated libertarian faction in the party, NOT that they "respresent" the party.
Rug Burn Junky on 16/8/2011 at 22:59
Quote Posted by CCCToad
To the other post: it really doesn't have anything to do with you personally, though your reaction is rather typical of the grandiosity that the entire "Wall Street Class" regularly exhibits. My resentment towards them has nothing to do with you personally. I've stated it a couple times and won't repeat myself on that count. For you, its a shame really. You're talented enough that you could have stood up and made a difference in whats happening, but instead you've chosen to aid and abet in what is possibly the greatest scam of modern history. And you still have the gall to complain about Right wingers destroying the economy. Its true, but more than a bit hypocritical when the damage they caused was due to their subservience to your employer's interests.
So, I'm not really sure that you have any standing at all to criticize the establishment GOP when both of you work for the same cause: to enrich the people who are responsible for America's current misery.
Oh, and by earning it, I don't mean making a grossly distorted ad hominem attack, fueled by your resentment, ignorance, and paranoia, with absolutely no understanding of how the crisis occurred, or my role in it.
NOW, SHUT THE FUCK UP LIKE YOU PROMISED.
Harvester on 17/8/2011 at 00:01
Quote Posted by CCCToad
For you, its a shame really. You're talented enough that you could have stood up and made a difference in whats happening, but instead you've chosen to aid and abet in what is possibly the greatest scam of modern history.
This is a new low for you. Completely uncalled for. It's like saying you're partly responsible for innocent Afghani casualties in the war.
