“Demand will be generated by companies, not
generated by individuals living in other countries,”
that is fundamental. that is key. and, that is supposed to be at the heart of the pearsonian system that the liberal party created.
now, if we could democratize the workplace, that would be even better. but, if we had a democratized workplace, it would nonetheless fall upon those co-operatives to request workers. so, let's not get tangled up: this is the way this ought to work, regardless.
it is the most obvious thing in the world to state that immigration levels and targets should be determined by canadians in a way that utilizes a concept of centralized planning, not left to some abstraction of a "market" to figure out.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
Thursday, March 9, 2017
this is more along the lines of what one expects from the liberals on immigration. hopefully, they maintain this focus on bringing in skilled labour, and slow down on the refugees...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/canada-to-make-skilled-worker-permits-easier-to-get-in-wake-of-us-delays/article34246962/
at
21:10
“It’s a terrible idea for so many reasons . . . we’re using legal
resources to try to shut down dispensaries when it’s going to be legal
soon,”
yeah. that seems crazy, doesn't it?
unless.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/prince-and-princess-of-pot-reportedly-arrested-at-toronto-airport.html
yeah. that seems crazy, doesn't it?
unless.....
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/03/09/prince-and-princess-of-pot-reportedly-arrested-at-toronto-airport.html
at
20:46
and, fwiw, i'd be lying if i told you i haven't had an erection in years, but i'd be honest if i told you i haven't wanted to have an erection in years - and i'd be honest if i told you that the only erections i've had in years are nrbs.
they come and go when i'm like washing the dishes or reading the news or something, and my only reaction almost all of the time is to curse it as an annoyance and go pop another cyproterone.
and, what is cyproterone? well, there's a few different testosterone suppressors that i could be using, but i use the cyproterone because it's covered on the disability drug plan. the reason it's covered is that it's sometimes prescribed as a way to chemically castrate sex offenders.
that's right - i take a drug that is covered by public drug insurance to reduce the sex drive of pedophiles and rapists. and, i do it by choice.
it works, too - i am almost impossible to arouse on purpose. they really only come randomly, and only in terms of an annoyance.
that said, i do still have sex dreams from time to time and this is the only circumstance where i may actually orgasm. but, here's the thing: i'm chemically castrated. so, i'm not producing sperm. so, when i orgasm, i don't ejaculate.
that's right: i cannot cum. it is not physically possible for me to do so, when i am taking heavy-duty testosterone suppressors. that's what the suppressors actually do: they make it almost impossible to arouse me, and literally impossible for me to ejaculate.
so, what was that that you were saying?
they come and go when i'm like washing the dishes or reading the news or something, and my only reaction almost all of the time is to curse it as an annoyance and go pop another cyproterone.
and, what is cyproterone? well, there's a few different testosterone suppressors that i could be using, but i use the cyproterone because it's covered on the disability drug plan. the reason it's covered is that it's sometimes prescribed as a way to chemically castrate sex offenders.
that's right - i take a drug that is covered by public drug insurance to reduce the sex drive of pedophiles and rapists. and, i do it by choice.
it works, too - i am almost impossible to arouse on purpose. they really only come randomly, and only in terms of an annoyance.
that said, i do still have sex dreams from time to time and this is the only circumstance where i may actually orgasm. but, here's the thing: i'm chemically castrated. so, i'm not producing sperm. so, when i orgasm, i don't ejaculate.
that's right: i cannot cum. it is not physically possible for me to do so, when i am taking heavy-duty testosterone suppressors. that's what the suppressors actually do: they make it almost impossible to arouse me, and literally impossible for me to ejaculate.
so, what was that that you were saying?
at
19:00
so, let's try to think this through carefully.
i've been arguing at various levels of intensity, in various fora, that the left should not be acting as apologists for patriarchy through the cover of "religious freedom" - that is, it should not be throwing gays and women under the bus in a rush to stand up for ethnic diversity, and should rather take an idealistic stand against patriarchy, in all it's forms.
so, therefore i'm pro-trump? opposing religious refugees on the grounds of feminism means i'm in favour of christian extremism? right. sure. if you think you can explain that to me somewhere, go for it...
you're lost in a contradiction. and, yes: i'm shit-disturbing. but, you're going to need to work this through...
you can't be pro-religion and pro-queer and pro-woman at the same time. and, i'll continue to call you out on it for as long as you need to figure it out.
what is the truth here?
the truth is that some of the pseudo-left are, at their core, traditionalists: some of them are really in favour of upholding patriarchy deep down, and will in the end side with religion over feminism. getting them to admit this is a first step forward in throwing them out of the left - and that is something that needs to happen.
others are just hopelessly naive and need to have the truth of it held up to them in the most brutal terms possible, and these are the ones i'm more interested in targeting through agit-prop: they need to be shocked into seeing things as they really are, and in dropping their hegemonically enforced burkean delusions.
once again: i am not a pc-worshipping millenial progressive democrat that wants peace and love, and i'm certainly not a white supremacist christian republican that wants to run the world out of the back of the bible. what i am is an atheistic anarcho-communist gen x punk that wants to agitate and irritate and shit-disturb people into fighting against religion, against patriarchy and against capital. and, it's up to you to determine whether we have common cause or not.
i've been arguing at various levels of intensity, in various fora, that the left should not be acting as apologists for patriarchy through the cover of "religious freedom" - that is, it should not be throwing gays and women under the bus in a rush to stand up for ethnic diversity, and should rather take an idealistic stand against patriarchy, in all it's forms.
so, therefore i'm pro-trump? opposing religious refugees on the grounds of feminism means i'm in favour of christian extremism? right. sure. if you think you can explain that to me somewhere, go for it...
you're lost in a contradiction. and, yes: i'm shit-disturbing. but, you're going to need to work this through...
you can't be pro-religion and pro-queer and pro-woman at the same time. and, i'll continue to call you out on it for as long as you need to figure it out.
what is the truth here?
the truth is that some of the pseudo-left are, at their core, traditionalists: some of them are really in favour of upholding patriarchy deep down, and will in the end side with religion over feminism. getting them to admit this is a first step forward in throwing them out of the left - and that is something that needs to happen.
others are just hopelessly naive and need to have the truth of it held up to them in the most brutal terms possible, and these are the ones i'm more interested in targeting through agit-prop: they need to be shocked into seeing things as they really are, and in dropping their hegemonically enforced burkean delusions.
once again: i am not a pc-worshipping millenial progressive democrat that wants peace and love, and i'm certainly not a white supremacist christian republican that wants to run the world out of the back of the bible. what i am is an atheistic anarcho-communist gen x punk that wants to agitate and irritate and shit-disturb people into fighting against religion, against patriarchy and against capital. and, it's up to you to determine whether we have common cause or not.
at
17:33
i haven't read the case, but the entire premise of a judge citing the
criminal code in a ruling is pretty weird, to begin with. that's
something they'd do in, like, france, or something. in the british
common law system, a judge is supposed to consult previous judicial
precedent. stare decisis.
about the only way a judge could have missed that a section has been struck down is if he never bothered to look up the precedent in the first place, and i don't even know what you do when a judge is refusing to consult precedent. it's probably without precedent. i mean, maybe there's an answer, i don't know. but, you'd think it's grounds for removal from the bench.
i mean, that is the job of a judge - to consult precedent and rule accordingly. if a judge is refusing to to do his job, he should be removed.
this is no doubt long overdue, as a clerical procedure. but, let us not believe that the problem here is that the code was not amended; the problem here is that the judge is not consulting precedent.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/
about the only way a judge could have missed that a section has been struck down is if he never bothered to look up the precedent in the first place, and i don't even know what you do when a judge is refusing to consult precedent. it's probably without precedent. i mean, maybe there's an answer, i don't know. but, you'd think it's grounds for removal from the bench.
i mean, that is the job of a judge - to consult precedent and rule accordingly. if a judge is refusing to to do his job, he should be removed.
this is no doubt long overdue, as a clerical procedure. but, let us not believe that the problem here is that the code was not amended; the problem here is that the judge is not consulting precedent.
http://globalnews.ca/news/2945753/travis-vader-verdict-what-is-section-230-of-the-criminal-code/
at
02:24
no.
arabs can not say "nigger". ever. and, if you don't realize how uncontroversial my condemnation is, or how repulsive the premise is, you are simply ignorant of the history.
arabs ran a brutal african slave trade for roughly a thousand years. and, literal chattel slavery in the arabian peninsula was not abolished until the 1960s and 1970s - although everybody knows that it still continues.
if you ever see an arab utter the term, you should punch him in the fucking face.
arabs can not say "nigger". ever. and, if you don't realize how uncontroversial my condemnation is, or how repulsive the premise is, you are simply ignorant of the history.
arabs ran a brutal african slave trade for roughly a thousand years. and, literal chattel slavery in the arabian peninsula was not abolished until the 1960s and 1970s - although everybody knows that it still continues.
if you ever see an arab utter the term, you should punch him in the fucking face.
at
00:13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)