• Moderators, please send me a PM if you are unable to access mod permissions. Thanks, Habsy.

OT: American Politics

I love Canadians telling me how it is here. Some of you are ridiculously arrogant. I speak from personal experience on these matters, you guys talk out of your collective asses.

The most ridiculously arrogant are the ones who are in a higher tax bracket, and object to paying their share because they think they're carrying the load for the masses who prefer to sit on their asses and collect welfare. While it's certainly true there are those who do sit on their asses and expect the rest of us to pay their way, (see the many videos of Tea Party rallies for reference... oh the irony...), the vast majority of the people out there ARE working and paying their share. The ones who's weight we are carrying are very far in the minority, but don't let facts get in the way of your opinions.
I like how, for example, you point out how those who actually had to work very hard for their riches rather than just fall into them have a good reason to complain about paying more. The sad truth is, the loudest detractors for paying their share are the Koch Brothers types who never lifted a finger for their fortune. "I'm alright, Jack, keep your hands off of my stash." Even Trump, who "fell into" the bulk of his fortune, spouts the same rhetoric.
The head of Berkshire Hathaway has no issue paying more. And he really did work his ass off to get where he is.
But you go ahead and continue to believe we're all clueless and only you understand. Your arrogance is far and away above the level of mine.
Next you'll tell me I'm a welfare recipient.
 
Once again speaking from the experience of others...

If the check on the first Thursday of every month fits...
 
Re: OT: Canadian Politics

A note on how all three federal parties fail the military

The NDP are the most honest about their distrust/loathing

The liberals are generally indifferent

The tories pander.

The British may form the world’s most orderly line-ups but they tend to lose patience when people don’t live up to their commitments.


At the conclusion of the NATO summit in Wales two years ago, all countries signed a declaration reaffirming collective defence, after Russia’s aggression in Ukraine, and agreeing to increase defence spending to two per cent of gross domestic product within a decade.

With another summit due in Warsaw this summer, the Brits indicated this week they are a little bit cross, if not slightly miffed, no visible progress is being made by several countries, including Canada.

There was no official comment but sources said London sent the diplomatic message through embassies and high commissions this week. They were at pains to point out that Canada was not the only recipient of the rebuke.

But it came in the same week that the Trudeau government was excluded from a U.S.-led meeting of defence ministers from countries spearheading the fight against the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. U.S. Defence Secretary Ashley Carter warned allies that there was no room for “free-riders” in the coalition.

The pressure is piling on the government’s defence agenda from all sides. One particularly damning commentary doing the rounds points out that, according to estimated expenditures for 2015, only four NATO members are expected to spend less as a percentage of GDP than Canada and one of them is Luxembourg. The author of that piece was Roland Paris, Justin Trudeau’s new foreign policy
The Liberals are not responsible for the Harper government’s record on defence spending, but talk of a “leaner, more agile” military does not suggest a sharp uptick in expenditure.

The reason for the furrowed brows in London, and in Washington, is easily explained by a glance at military spending by GDP, still the benchmark measure used by NATO.

Only five nations – the U.S., Britain, Greece, Estonia and Poland – will meet the two per cent target this year. Canada’s defence expenditure is now less than half that, having fallen from about two per cent under Brian Mulroney in 1988. The Americans account for three quarters of the alliance’s spending.

Budget 2015 earmarked another $11.8 billion for defence over 10 years, but that amount doesn’t start flowing until next year and will barely keep spending increases above inflation.

Canada, whose armed forces are about the same size as those of NATO ally Romania, also falls short on another commitment made in Wales — one fifth of defence spending would be devoted to equipment. It currently spends about 16 per cent of its defence budget on equipment, research and development.

In the past, Canadian governments have argued allies should look at the quality of their contribution, not the quantity. Further, they have pointed out that Canada always answers the call.

But that argument carries little water in light of the decision to pull the CF-18 fighters from Iraq.

The Americans said Thursday they will convene a meeting of defence ministers from 27 countries next month to discuss how each coalition member can contribute more to defeating ISIL.

“Every nation must come prepared to further contributions to the fight,” said Carter.

Even in the relatively honeyed words of international diplomacy, it is apparent that our principal allies believe we have short arms and long pockets; that if we had to choose between our money and our lives, we would have to think it over.

As a nation, we signed on to an agreement that pledged to strengthen the partnerships on which the foundations of our prosperity and way of life are built.

We said we would provide the resources, capabilities and political will to meet any challenge; that we would stand ready to act together to defend freedom and our shared values.

Apparently, the Harper government signed the summit declaration, with no intention of even trying to live up to it. For once, the Liberals are in full agreement.

But we live in a dangerous world and the alliance is the bedrock of this country’s security.

Canada can’t be back unless it plays a fuller part in NATO.
 
That doesn't change the fact that if he had tweeted from a non-Sportsnet account they would have had no case against him. It was because he used his official work account.

:lol

What world do you live in? People get fired all the time for things they write on their personal twitter or facebook accounts.
 
I thought we were talking about godard. Thats the example you gave. A 5 year old incident where the guy used a work account to spout off his political view.

If youve got better examples... post them cause godard isnt it.
 
I thought we were talking about godard. Thats the example you gave. A 5 year old incident where the guy used a work account to spout off his political view.

If youve got better examples... post them cause godard isnt it.

Let me see if I can find anything...

Costa Terminates Pinoy Crew Member Who Posted Broken Dishes on Facebook

Fired Over Facebook

8 Insane Social Media Posts That Got People Fired

10 people who learned social media can get you fired

A Brief History of People Getting Fired for Social Media Stupidity

17 People Who Were Fired For Using Facebook

14 Canadians who were fired for social media posts

That was hard.
 
Lets see

1... bashing his own company on facebook. Seems pretty normal. If i bashed my own company on facebok (and took videos of the backrooms that the public doesn't see and posted them) id expect to be fired too.

2. Yup bashing your own employer. Making jokes that the guards at a prison facility groped him. Doing so as a representative of the employer. Probably gonna get you fired.

3. Wont open on my phone (so I won't comment, i do see the picture is the same as the picture in #4, the teacher smoking weed)

4. a) A dude who works at taco bell is fired cause he posts a video of himself working at taco bell and licking the food before its served to customers. Really Johnny? The dude posted videos of himself LICKING THE TACO SHELLS before they are served to customers. And you think that being fired violates his rights to free speech?

b) A highschool teacher is fired for posting videos where she is doing drugs and talking about how hot her underage students are.

Im not even gonna bother to even open or address the rest.

If this is the best you have. Thats pretty sad.

If you are a teacher and you post yourself doing drugs and talking about your hot underage students... or you are an employee at a restaurant and you post videos of yourself violating health codes these are not really free speech issues.

It is not logical to put up a video of you being a terrible employee and then say... its free speech you can't fire me.
 
Last edited:
Out of curiosity, I thought I'd see if Goddard was still on twitter. And he is.

His twitter timeline consists almost entirely of whining about persecution of Catholics, hash-tagged tweets against abortion and gay marriage, tweeting at gay celebrities that he's "praying for them", critiques of how current Sportsnet hosts are doing their jobs and the occasional post about sports.

He's also got a dead link to defunct TV network he's the "President/Executive" producer of, and a personal website filled with more of the same from his twitter time-line.

What a nut-job.
 
So he still has his freedom of speech then I guess.

Freedom of speech doesn't include job security. It would be a freedom of speech issue if he were arrested.
 
Lets see

1... bashing his own company on facebook. Seems pretty normal. If i bashed my own company on facebok (and took videos of the backrooms that the public doesn't see and posted them) id expect to be fired too.

2. Yup bashing your own employer. Making jokes that the guards at a prison facility groped him. Doing so as a representative of the employer. Probably gonna get you fired.

3. Wont open on my phone (so I won't comment, i do see the picture is the same as the picture in #4, the teacher smoking weed)

4. a) A dude who works at taco bell is fired cause he posts a video of himself working at taco bell and licking the food before its served to customers. Really Johnny? The dude posted videos of himself LICKING THE TACO SHELLS before they are served to customers. And you think that being fired violates his rights to free speech?

b) A highschool teacher is fired for posting videos where she is doing drugs and talking about how hot her underage students are.

Im not even gonna bother to even open or address the rest.

If this is the best you have. Thats pretty sad.

If you are a teacher and you post yourself doing drugs and talking about your hot underage students... or you are an employee at a restaurant and you post videos of yourself violating health codes these are not really free speech issues.

It is not logical to put up a video of you being a terrible employee and then say... its free speech you can't fire me.

oh man

that is funny/sad

but i am still with JH
 
Whether they are right or wrong, the point is they did it from their personal accounts for the most part. The key in Godard's dismissal, according to you, was that he used his official Sportsnet account.

Also, since when is posting pictures of broken dishes after a bad storm at sea "bashing" your company?

Ridiculous.

By the way, I've never said that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without consequence. Just that if you post an unpopular comment, you face consequences that you wouldn't if you were pro whatever.

I guarantee you that Godard would still be employed by Sportsnet if he had tweeted about supporting marriage equality. Unless he got himself fired for another reason.

That's a Messier guarantee, not an Alfredsson.
 
Whether they are right or wrong, the point is they did it from their personal accounts for the most part. The key in Godard's dismissal, according to you, was that he used his official Sportsnet account.

Also, since when is posting pictures of broken dishes after a bad storm at sea "bashing" your company?

Ridiculous.

By the way, I've never said that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without consequence. Just that if you post an unpopular comment, you face consequences that you wouldn't if you were pro whatever.

I guarantee you that Godard would still be employed by Sportsnet if he had tweeted about supporting marriage equality. Unless he got himself fired for another reason.

That's a Messier guarantee, not an Alfredsson.

Is this really that hard to understand.

if Damian Godard ranted about gay marriage on an account that didn't identify himself as "Damian Godard, Sportsnet Host" he would have been fine.

if Damian Godard used an anonymous account and posted video of himself in the lunch room at sportsnet licking his coworkers sandwiches, he would have still been fired... even with an anonymous account.


There is a difference between free speech and violating other people's food and posting about it (even if that account is anonymous).
There is also a difference when you post something political under an account that identifies you as working for and a representative of a company, when that political speech may not conform to your employers views.

Johnny, man, use some common sense. You seem like a smart guy, and this isn't that hard to figure out that there is a difference between the situations.
 
Last edited:
Is this really that hard to understand.

if Damian Godard ranted about gay marriage on an account that didn't identify himself as "Damian Godard, Sportsnet Host" he would have been fine.

if Damian Godard used an anonymous account and posted video of himself in the lunch room at sportsnet licking his coworkers sandwiches, he would have still been fired... even with an anonymous account.


There is a difference between free speech and violating other people's food and posting about it (even if that account is anonymous).
There is also a difference when you post something political under an account that identifies you as working for and a representative of a company, when that political speech may not conform to your employers views.

Johnny, man, use some common sense. You seem like a smart guy, and this isn't that hard to figure out that there is a difference between the situations.

“I completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds and his support for the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage,” Goddard wrote in a tweet on his personal Twitter account."

So it wasn't even his Sportsnet account. What a rant that was.
 
It was an account that identified him as a sportsnet host, and that the company wrote to twitter to get him a verified account.

Also as far as a rant goes "I Completely and whole-heartedly support Todd Reynolds" is basically adopting Reynolds rant.

you'll recall Reynolds tweet was... "Very sad to read Sean Avery's misguided support of same-gender 'marriage'. Legal or not, it will always be wrong."

But again the key point here is that if you are the public face of a company, and you are tweeting things off an account that identifies you as the public face of that company... the company has a right to fire you if you say something that is against their core values and beliefs.

As someone said earlier, free speech does not equal job security.
 
Whether they are right or wrong, the point is they did it from their personal accounts for the most part. The key in Godard's dismissal, according to you, was that he used his official Sportsnet account.

Also, since when is posting pictures of broken dishes after a bad storm at sea "bashing" your company?

Ridiculous.

By the way, I've never said that anyone should be able to say whatever they want without consequence. Just that if you post an unpopular comment, you face consequences that you wouldn't if you were pro whatever.

I guarantee you that Godard would still be employed by Sportsnet if he had tweeted about supporting marriage equality. Unless he got himself fired for another reason.

That's a Messier guarantee, not an Alfredsson.

How old are you?

Like 90?
 
Back
Top