Canada General Discussion

[Hatman]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

[Hatman]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

[Hatman]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

"Afford?" I don't know if that's an appropriate word, considering their society wasn't exactly capitalist. I would hope that you can see why going back to a pre-colonization traditional way of life isn't exactly an option.

[crypto-fascist superhero]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

"Afford?" I don't know if that's an appropriate word, considering their society wasn't exactly capitalist. I would hope that you can see why going back to a pre-colonization traditional way of life isn't exactly an option.

They can't have their cake and eat it too and expect other people to pay for the cake as well.  That's beyond unreasonable.

[Hatman]

I knew everything cost more in Nunavut, but some of these prices are really shocking: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/08/nunavut-food-hunger-protest_n_1581485.html#s=more231471

$82 for a 12 pack of Ginger Ale (355mL cans)!

It may sound heartless, but no one is forcing them to live there.

If that's your response to income inequality, hunger and high food prices in the northern territories, then you wouldn't make a good social democrat. But I'm sure you already knew that.

How does providing subsidies to those living in certain areas but not in others make one a good social democrat?  I'd oppose such subsidies for the same reason I am opposed to the US flood insurance program that subsidizes people who choose to live along the coast in hurricane zones.

Under the circumstances tho, I could see offering the people who live north of 55N assistance in relocating to a less remote location.

I see you have no concept of emotional attachment to where one lives, and how much more important it is for aboriginals such as the Inuit. Not to mention the complete culture shock of having to move from their traditional territory down south. That leads to huge social problems for them, worse than the problems of living up north.

If they want to purchase a 12-pack of ginger ale, then odds are they aren't really living authentically one with the nature using every part of the animal etc.

If you read the article, you would see that traditional hunting costs just as much as actual groceries, so that's a moot point.

"Nunavut's larder of "country food" — caribou, seals, fish and other animals — is there for the taking, but only if people can afford the snowmobiles, gas, rifles, ammunition and gear needed to travel safely. Elliott estimates hunting costs about $150 a day."

That doesn't sound like "traditional hunting" to me.

OK, do you suggest that feeding and using a dog team would be any cheaper/less time consuming?

That's why they have their "emotional attachment to the land," is it not?  Also, they were able to afford it for a few thousand years.

"Afford?" I don't know if that's an appropriate word, considering their society wasn't exactly capitalist. I would hope that you can see why going back to a pre-colonization traditional way of life isn't exactly an option.

They can't have their cake and eat it too and expect other people to pay for the cake as well.  That's beyond unreasonable.

"expecting other people to pay" may not even have to be an option. But even if it is an option, there is definitely a strategic value for the country to have people living in northern communities, especially as the north opens up due to climate change. Many Inuit are being employed as Arctic rangers, in defence of Arctic sovereignty. "Arctic sovereignty" is actually a huge part of Stephen Harper's agenda.

[Χahar]

Earl, stop.

[RogueBeaver]

All omnibus these next 10 days as the session wraps up, since Scheer ruled against May this morning.

[RogueBeaver]

Ivison says the opposition is in part to blame for the Omnibust.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/11/john-ivison-the-opposition-shares-the-blame-for-creating-omnibus-bill-mess/

[Senator MaxQue]

Ivison says the opposition is in part to blame for the Omnibust.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/11/john-ivison-the-opposition-shares-the-blame-for-creating-omnibus-bill-mess/

So, he is blaming the Opposition for opposing?

[RogueBeaver]

Ivison says the opposition is in part to blame for the Omnibust.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/11/john-ivison-the-opposition-shares-the-blame-for-creating-omnibus-bill-mess/

So, he is blaming the Opposition for opposing?

He's blaming them for bad strategy- saying they could have forced rule changes during the Harper minorities. As if Dion or Iggy were capable of outfoxing Harper in that sort of situation.

[RogueBeaver]

If he keeps himself out of trouble for a little longer, I certainly wouldn't mind Bernier swapping places with Paradis.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/12/john-ivison-berniers-maverick-call-for-bilingualism-reignites-conservative-push-in-quebec/

[Hatman]

lol budget vote: http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/Politics/1244504890/ID=2177072181

[President Marokai]

Considering everything goin' on in that budget, just calling it a "budget" is almost completely disingenuous.

[Hatman]

There will be 800+ amendments; the MPs will be pulling an all nighter.

[Hatman]

And they're still going...

[Hatman]

And they're still going...

[RogueBeaver]

Someone will blink.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mcguinty-wont-rule-anything-out-in-ontario-budget-standoff/article4266004/

[Holmes]

God. If I had a choice between listening to Dad's self-righteous scolding or putting a bullet in my mouth...

A snap election would be horrible.

[RogueBeaver]

Yes... because with Dad's political luck and his opponents' penchant for self-destruction he could well get a real majority. *Puke*

[Holmes]

Well, no. I don't think that would happen. I'm thinking more along the lines of the type of candidates a snap election would produce. Recruitment would be rushed, which could be a bad thing if another party won gouvernment.

[RogueBeaver]

Only been 8 months since the last election, so presumably most people would just renominate. At any rate Horwath went all soft at a presser this morning, so she'll cut a deal with Dad.

[RogueBeaver]

All 3 parties should look at this, particularly our Grit friends.

http://www.punditsguide.ca/2012/06/explaining-the-2011-federal-election-i-who-switched-to-whom-and-when/

[RogueBeaver]

How long before the Supremes look at this?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-supreme-court-strikes-down-ban-on-physician-assisted-suicide/article4267631/