Announcement

Collapse

Raptors Republic Android & iOS App

Hey guys and gals,

We're running a, how should I say, pilot or beta version of our new Raptors Republic app. We haven't made it official as we're still trying to work out some bugs while improving the user interface. So, its not the final version so expect to see more changes over the next while.

Anyhow, please feel free to download. Available on both Android & iPhone. It's absolutely free.

Android: https://play.google.com/store/apps/d...rsrepublic.app

iOS: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/the-...6946?ls=1&mt=8

If we could ask a favour though. We're welcoming feedback and suggestions on perhaps things you'd like to see. At the end of the day we're doing this for you guys by making everything here easier available for you the user. Please send your feedback (Regardless if its positive or negative) to raptorsrepublic@gmail.com.

Thanks in advance and we hope you guys enjoy the application.
See more
See less

Politics - The Legend Continues...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Joey wrote: View Post


    Only thing I need Aspirins for is reading these posts. Honestly, what are you actually contributing with posts like this? Your intent is just so hilariously obvious, it's painful man. My heads not exploding, not to worry ... you do you.
    Pithy.

    Keep doing you too.

    Heres hte image I get when I read or see when the somewhat progressives don't get their way.



    .
    Last edited by Demographic Shift; Tue Sep 11th, 2018, 01:16 AM.

    Comment


    • Comment


      • Bendit wrote: View Post
        Dear, dear me... there is many an occasion where a democratic majority in a legislature can pass unconstitutional legislation (many times mostly in haste, ideological motive or a collective loss of good sense). What then occurs in a nation of laws such a law can be challenged in court. Ergo, the court rules on the validity of the law or that of the challenge.

        And we have all heard what occurred today. It maybe temporary but this is the system.
        And ergo..so can judicial over reach be challenged by any provincial legislature using a power vested to it to check a rouge judicial appointment.

        Comment


        • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
          And ergo..so can judicial over reach be challenged by any provincial legislature using a power vested to it to check a rouge judicial appointment.
          Lol... don't say you as well see a red under every bench... of course only if the judgement doesn't go your way.

          btw... I prefer scotch for my headache ... and I did not drink any last night.

          ps...And no I never comment about mistypes but this one was too juicy to pass up on... Freudian?
          “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

          J.M. Keynes

          Comment


          • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
            Count me in as happy that the legislature, who are a directly elected lot, again believe their role in a parliamentary democracy is to take their policy's that the great unwashed voted for and turn it into policy and get it off the order paper as legislation. What a novel concept .. that a parliamentary majority can exercise their duly vested powers to bring policy into being.
            He didn't run on shrinking Toronto city council. Wasn't mentioned, that I recall, during the campaign. Ergo, hard to argue this is just doing the will of the electorate. We know what it really is, salt left over from a failed municipal career.
            Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

            Comment


            • jimmie wrote: View Post
              He didn't run on shrinking Toronto city council. Wasn't mentioned, that I recall, during the campaign. Ergo, hard to argue this is just doing the will of the electorate. We know what it really is, salt left over from a failed municipal career.
              You could go one step further and say that he figured it would actually be *against* the will of the electorate - which is the reason it was never mentioned.
              "Stop eating your sushi."
              "I do actually have a pair of Uggs."
              "I've had three cups of green tea tonight. I'm wired. I'm absolutely wired."
              - Jack Armstrong

              Comment


              • jimmie wrote: View Post
                He didn't run on shrinking Toronto city council. Wasn't mentioned, that I recall, during the campaign. Ergo, hard to argue this is just doing the will of the electorate. We know what it really is, salt left over from a failed municipal career.
                It is, and that's a political question that can be resolved by the voters in due course. The use of the notwithstanding clause is perfectly legitimate here as a legal matter - and in fact is one of the extreme scenarios which the clause was meant to address (a judge using novel and unsound reasons to strike down a law) - but whether it's an appropriate response politically will be up to the electorate.

                Comment


                • Bendit wrote: View Post
                  Lol... don't say you as well see a red under every bench... of course only if the judgement doesn't go your way.

                  btw... I prefer scotch for my headache ... and I did not drink any last night.

                  ps...And no I never comment about mistypes but this one was too juicy to pass up on... Freudian?
                  When you got shit on a stick to refute a position.... . smarm away !

                  I remember guys like you ... whose sole contribution to the problem at hand after reviewing the brief was to say that there was a typo on page 4.

                  How Juicy is that ?
                  Last edited by Demographic Shift; Tue Sep 11th, 2018, 11:37 AM.

                  Comment


                  • jimmie wrote: View Post
                    He didn't run on shrinking Toronto city council. Wasn't mentioned, that I recall, during the campaign. Ergo, hard to argue this is just doing the will of the electorate. We know what it really is, salt left over from a failed municipal career.
                    I am pretty sure he ran on .. and I'm paraphrasing .. but the phrase" finding efficencies in govt" .. got said a lot .. no ?

                    A remapping of electoral wards to mirror accepted federal and provincial ridings representation models seems more pragmatic than dictatorial.. no ?

                    That any level of government needs more politicians .. .said by no one ever... could be construed to be at odds with a section of the body politic that values ideological views over pragmatism.
                    Last edited by Demographic Shift; Tue Sep 11th, 2018, 11:41 AM.

                    Comment


                    • A Bob Woodward interview about his new book...

                      “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                      J.M. Keynes

                      Comment


                      • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
                        I am pretty sure he ran on .. and I'm paraphrasing .. but the phrase" finding efficencies in govt" .. got said a lot .. no ?

                        A remapping of electoral wards to mirror accepted federal and provincial ridings representation models seems more pragmatic than dictatorial.. no ? That the country needs more politicians .. .said no one ever... seems to be at odds with a section of the body politic that values ideological views over pragmatism.
                        As far as I can tell, there seem to be 5 objections to the law:

                        1. It was imprudent given the timing, which is a reasonable objection.
                        2. Toronto needs 47 councilors to be governed effectively. This seems.... questionable.
                        3. The motives behind it are bad, ergo, the law is bad, which, while the first part may be true, the second part doesn't follow. You could probably throw the, he didn't campaign on it objection here as well, which, while true, isn't a principled objection to the merits of the law.
                        4. I don't like Ford and so will complain about anything he does. Fair enough.
                        5. OMG! End of the World! Ford's a dictator! Nazis! Russians! ARGH! Unfortunately, this reflects the views of a very loud, obnoxious few.

                        Comment


                        • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
                          I am pretty sure he ran on .. and I'm paraphrasing .. but the phrase" finding efficencies in govt" .. got said a lot .. no ?

                          A remapping of electoral wards to mirror accepted federal and provincial ridings representation models seems more pragmatic than dictatorial.. no ?

                          That any level of government needs more politicians .. .said by no one ever... could be construed to be at odds with a section of the body politic that values ideological views over pragmatism.
                          In a word: no.

                          No, "finding efficiencies in government" does not say anything about reducing council seats in one particular city in the province.

                          No, a remapping of electoral wards doesn't seem "pragmatic" unless your sole goal is "reducing the size of (municipal) government". He's never given any explanation why he thinks the number of councillors is excessive and means less effective governance. Not everyone believes smaller by necessity = better government. I agree with you about folks that value ideological views over pragmatism, though...
                          Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                          Comment


                          • Demographic Shift wrote: View Post
                            When you got shit on a stick to refute a position.... . smarm away !

                            I remember guys like you ... whose sole contribution to the problem at hand after reviewing the brief was to say that there was a typo on page 4.

                            How Juicy is that ?
                            Your post makes no sense. I refute plenty ... check my refutes. And I did so in the post you quoted.

                            Re typo, it's a good thing I disclosed why I did .. in case you came up with a complaint... which you did nevertheless. You must really have nothing more to say on the subject. Which is fine.
                            “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                            J.M. Keynes

                            Comment


                            • slaw wrote: View Post
                              As far as I can tell, there seem to be 5 objections to the law:

                              1. It was imprudent given the timing, which is a reasonable objection.
                              2. Toronto needs 47 councilors to be governed effectively. This seems.... questionable.
                              3. The motives behind it are bad, ergo, the law is bad, which, while the first part may be true, the second part doesn't follow. You could probably throw the, he didn't campaign on it objection here as well, which, while true, isn't a principled objection to the merits of the law.
                              4. I don't like Ford and so will complain about anything he does. Fair enough.
                              5. OMG! End of the World! Ford's a dictator! Nazis! Russians! ARGH! Unfortunately, this reflects the views of a very loud, obnoxious few.
                              The only one that really matters is #1. There's no argument against that one.

                              He's an idiot and he lacks any political foresight. If he wanted to do this, he should have taken a measured approach to a huge change that was bound to piss off a lot of people. Get your legislative ducks in order, consult your lawyers, consult your electorate, do some kind of "study" that proves smaller would be better, etc.

                              Instead, he just said it was done, in the midst of a municipal campaign, no less. Stupid.
                              Definition of Statistics: The science of producing unreliable facts from reliable figures.

                              Comment


                              • jimmie wrote: View Post
                                The only one that really matters is #1. There's no argument against that one.

                                He's an idiot and he lacks any political foresight. If he wanted to do this, he should have taken a measured approach to a huge change that was bound to piss off a lot of people. Get your legislative ducks in order, consult your lawyers, consult your electorate, do some kind of "study" that proves smaller would be better, etc.

                                Instead, he just said it was done, in the midst of a municipal campaign, no less. Stupid.
                                Heavens no... any professional study might well have shown these "cuts" resulting in more expense (more employees and contractors etc)... which points to the "I am the boss" and ideological/personal animus reasoning.
                                “When my information changes, I alter my conclusions. What do you do, sir?”

                                J.M. Keynes

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X