VanGnome

Members
  • Content Count

    2,587
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

VanGnome last won the day on August 16 2018

VanGnome had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,619 Gaming the system

About VanGnome

  • Rank
    Canucks Regular
  • Birthday 07/24/1982

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

6,260 profile views
  1. Remains to be seen, but we at some point have to have faith in the system we have since it's all we have. I've been following Bernier closely since the formation of the PPC and he's been remarkably consistent, so until he gives me a reason to distrust, I will be cautiously optimistic that we do still have a glimmer of hope politically before the entire system is consumed by the bureaucracy and corruption that follows.
  2. Kenny is just as bad as Scheer as far as "conservative" politicians go. Both are conservative in name only, Scheer rigged the leadership race between he and Bernier, only Scheer didn't get caught. Kenney is just a moron, but Notley isn't much better. IMO all of the provincial and federal "incumbent" parties are corrupt and untrustworthy. Bernier and the PPC have my support only for the fact that Bernier seems to be direct and straight forward with the issues he stands for, seems to back up his words. He made some ripples when he was part of the Harper cabinet as minister of Industry, pushing for CRTC reform as well as ending supply management, so much so to the point where he irked Harper who effectively back benched him. Bernier also doesn't like to focus on special interest groups which Canada has done far too much of in recent memory, so it's good to see someone federally take up that banner. It just sucks that the PPC are so new, he should be commended for doing what he's done to date as a new party, registering EDAs in all 338 ridings and ramping up his promise to have candidates in all of those ridings. I think there just isn't enough time for him to gain enough of the public's trust. The single issue voters in this country are going to split the left between the new kid on the block (Singh, NDP) and Trudeau which is a good thing, and most conservatives I feel are going to stick with Scheer because its the "conservative" party. Voters are creatures of habit, and it takes a lot for them on average to change their minds. I feel like we're going to see a minority government, especially if Trudeau calls for a snap election, but then I've been out of the loop for the past week as I've been moving my family.
  3. If I have to fly for work (occasionally I travel to HQ, but so far its only been a few times in 3 years), I choose United Airlines. If flying domestically within Canada it's Westjet and it's not even a close second to any other carrier.
  4. I already prefaced my comments by stating that Domestic flights are by and large safe, across many tens of thousands of flights. I also said the only time I have made a HABIT of flying, is by doing so recreationally. A lot more than just the safety of something is taken into account for me when deciding mode of transport. I genuinely enjoy taking a few days to travel by vehicle, stoping at notable sights and visiting placed I would ordinarily not visit. For me traveling is more about the experience than the act, since I don't travel for business I'm fine with spending the time not flying. Traveling for business pretty much always means having to fly just due to the sheer efficiency of it. Control issues? Maybe, I prefer to look at it as being overly responsible for my own life. I prefer to put my individual well being in the hands of others as little as possible.
  5. Boeing should be held responsible and issue a recall to all affected aircraft, and ensure the faulty sensor is replaced in all in service aircraft at the company's cost. In addition this also lands on the shoulders of the regulatory equivalent of Transport Canada (the board that oversees maintenance requirements of aircraft among other things). If the advisory had been adhered to, that plane should have been grounded if there was any question as to its airworthiness. More over, it's on the shoulders of the airline company that didn't want to incur loss of revenues by taking a plane out of service without having a suitable replacement. Flights domestically in Canada and the US are for the most part pretty safe over large sample sets, but I still keep flying to a minimum and will opt to drive whenever I make long trips. The only time I have made a habit of flying is when I am personally in control of an aircraft (used to fly Cessna 172 and 152 models), have the ability to physically inspect the aircraft before departure and have an opportunity to inspect the maintenance log to ensure all required overhauls and maintenance is performed according to official schedules laid out by Transport Canada.
  6. VanGnome

    [Proposal] Canucks offseason shakeup

    Canucks are going to target a D-man in the off-season, maybe a forward. I expect them to go hard after Karlsson, and look to re-sign Edler. If the Canucks and Edler cannot come to an agreement, they will likely try to sign Gardiner (yuck). Edler - Karlsson Hutton - Stecher Hughes - Tanev Gardiner - Karlsson Hutton - Stecher Hughes - Tanev I could also see no Gardiner, and no Edler, and instead going hard after Karlsson and Panarin. Hutton - Karlsson Juolevi - Stecher Hughes - Tanev Panarin - Pettersson - Boeser Pearson - Horvat - Leivo Goldobin - Gaudette - Virtanen Rousell - Beagle - Motte Dump Eriksson to a team needing cap and Sutter to a team needing center depth.
  7. My grandmother passed away from pancreatic cancer. I would not wish that form of dying on my worst enemy.
  8. https://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/fpd/ch03.html#section3_5 The issue here is that this pressure was place on JWR's role as the AG, not as a cabinet minister.
  9. Yes, and in continuing to perpetuate that mistake by involving others he may have unwittingly entered himself and his colleagues into a criminal conspiracy. Even if the intent was not there, the law judges based on the actions and the determination must be made as to the mindset of the individuals involved at the time, through sworn affidavits and testimony to RCMP investigators.
  10. You're correct. If those discussions occur BEFORE the DPP and AG have made their final determination. Why is that so difficult to accept? It was not until after both decisions were rendered, that JT and others felt like a different decision should have been made, but it was not their place to impose that decision. JWR also said herself, her issuance of a directive be unprecedented (an AG has never in the history of Canada issued a specific directive to enact a specific decision in a specific case), she also said the issuance of such a directive would have been inappropriate given the relevant factors in deciding on the eligibility of issuing a DPA.
  11. JWR is positioning herself for party leadership. She has many supporters within the Liberal Party of Canada. This is going to come crashing down over Trudeau and the PMO, as well as the Finance department. She's going to challenge likely Freeland for party leadership and will pick up the pieces. It may still not be enough to win the election, I think the best Liberals can hope for is a minority government.
  12. https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html national economic interest: this covers impacts to GDP, unemployment due to loss of jobs, etc Further, political considerations are not defined AT ALL in the law, therefore they cannot be considered during the eligibility of a DPA. By clearly defining what can and cannot be used in consideration, they have provided an incredibly narrow scope as to what can and cannot be considered.
  13. We will see what transpires from the RCMP investigation that has undoubtedly been started, though RCMP will neither confirm nor deny that an investigation is under way. 5 former Attorney Generals of Canada have individually called the RCMP to stress the importance of an investigation, as well as a joint letter between Scheer and Singh publicly calling the RCMP to investigate the matter. If as you say there were "no legal or procedural issues here", then why at every "turn" did the Liberals go to extreme lengths to obstruct the ability for the truth in the issue to come forward? It has only been under extreme pressure that they bent and allowed for a judicial committee to be formed on the matter. It was only under extreme pressure did Trudeau relent and waive a limited amount of client-solicitor privilege and cabinet confidentiality through the issuance of the order in council, and allowed JWR to even testify at all in any capacity. It has only been under extreme pressure and an under oath testimony that Gerald Butts agreed to testify before the committee, and a direct counter testimony to Michael Wernick has he agreed to RE-appear before the committee. One of the things that NO ONE has spoken about, is the RCMP if they are investigating will also very likely explore the mens rea around criminal conspiracy that would have resulted in an obstruction of justice having been committed, of which if it got to that point JWR would have been implicated. You have to look at what the ultimate goal was (forcibly change the independent decision of the DPP to issue a DPA which by the very definition of the law was ineligible to be given anyway), then take into account what those considerations were (again all inadmissible for relevancy when deciding on eligibility for a DPA) for engaging in that course of action. Assuming the government understood their own law that was passed in their budget bill, it's safe to assume that they knew that a DPA was ineligible, and even if they did not, ignorance of the law does not dismiss criminal responsibility. Yet they embarked on an agreement anyway (as corroborated by 11 people sharing the same opinion) to attempt to change the mind of the AG which would have then illegally obstructed the lawful prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
  14. Where have I made anything up? Do you have any understanding of the law, and the thought processes associated with the adherence to those laws? Seems you COMPLETELY missed the point, and I'll not waste further breath.
  15. Not sure if you saw a previous post, but I specifically stated that Harper and Scheer are no better, cut from the same cloth as Trudeau. Canada has been managed by a 2 party "dictatorship" for more or less it's entire history as a country. The first iterations were highly devoted to the crown because we were still subject to royal rule, since roughly 1931 with the Wesminster Accord (if memory serves), the individual provinces and territories reclaimed much of their sovereignty to allow for the formation of a true republic, but that power has never been exercised. Canada existed from around 1931 to 1982 in a state of semi allegiance to the Crown until Pierre Trudeau decided to put Canada down a socialist/communist path by repatriating the "constitution". It's only been a little less than 37 years, which historically speaking is such an insignificant amount of time, but we've already seen IMO Canada's political peak and it has not ben impressive at all. We're on the downward trend relative to the bell curve, things are going to get a lot messier moving forward. Never mind subverting Canada's sovereignty by dutifully adopting UN "non binding" resolutions into our own immigration laws (I hate that term because its a nothing statement. It's only used to give the illusion that we have a choice, but we don't. Any such resolution gets implemented into our laws and it's imposed upon the populace). The point is looking at things objectively, if you look at the respective actions of Governments from 1982 through today, you see a clear path of linearity. It's a slow creep toward communism, evident in the crony capitalism (not true free market capitalism) were big business are ushered favors by Government via bailouts, lucrative contracts and down right scandalous contract issuance (Chretien era sponsorship scandal). We see flippant use of public resources for personal gain (Mike Duffy), back room deals to further political and economic interests not in the interest of people but that of the government (Harper, TPP). We see overwhelming allowance of foreign money to come into the country and set up shop (china through the abuse of Quebec and other PNP programs, real estate and corporate foreign ownership), and playing politics with this recent Huawei rubbish (which is just grand standing, the Government knows full well that the extradition will not go through, they're using this as an opportunity to "stick it to Trump"). Now we have this SNC-Lavalin crap. We don't have true democratic rule, we have a two-tiered structure that favors those who are connected and wealthy, and then everyone else. Meanwhile, there are a lot of average folks to don't pay too close attention to politics, and even a lot who do that get wrapped up in the fuzzy warm blanket of the left. Politics is intrinsically designed to divide, us vs them. Left vs Right. There is no such thing as distinct "identity politics" because by definition politics are based on identity. Choose your side, draw your line in the sand. Admonish the other side, protect your tribe because if you're not with us, you're against us. What makes this political existence tolerable is the integrity of good men and women doing the right thing despite the allure of abuse of power. Actually governing in the people's best interests, not their own. I have no doubt that there is some self serving aspect to JWR, she's not a saint and I'm not making her out to be, but it was refreshing to see her exercise some moral integrity and throw a wrench into the machine of Trudeau's ill conceived plans. I would not be surprised if she (JWR) made a power grab for leadership of the party and begins to push a strong feminist/aboriginal agenda which compared to eroding standard of living through mass importation of the 3rd world is really not so bad provided it does not go too far, but if her current actions are anything to go by then I have confidence that she would be able to bring a degree of levelheadedness to Canadian federal politics that is desperately needed. I don't particularly care what the party alignment is of the governing party, I'm not always going to agree with the policies of the Liberals OR the Conservatives, what I look for is the exercise of pragmatism, responsibility, fairness and above all integrity. What I do care about is when "ideologies" are allowed to govern instead of common sense. When I talk about "leftism" I talk about the innocent ignorance of a lot of people to get caught up in the virtue signaling "cons bad, orange man bad" rhetoric. I want people to see things for what they are and realize that it does not boil down to us vs them, or left vs right or the people vs the government, but rather its a huge melting pot and the only constant is compromise.