Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction.
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty.
.
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
Unless you want to actually get educated. Then you should probably read books and journals instead of watching frivolous and biased documentaries. But, you know... that takes effort.
So a documentary that educates people on the basics of the financial system - and a documentary about corporations and how they operate in the modern world are "frivolous" and "biased". K.
Then I'll assume you haven't watched either of them.
I know: it takes way less effort to make assumptions on something you haven't watched, and then take 5 seconds to make a snap judgement on it and attack someone anonymously on the Internet.
This is why a huge percentage of the world is willfully ignorant. And this is why the worlds elite, the bankers, and the multi-national corporations can get away with flushing the world around us down the toilet.
The most incredible chance for education is available at people's fingertips from the comfort of your own home. ... and they stick their head in the sand, fingers up their ass, make snap judgement on internet forums and try to win arguments with anonymous people while they munch Cheeto's and fart.
I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Documentary on what our money really is, and how banks exploit it. The follow up documentary sequel carries it closer to a more "real" depiction. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVkFb26u9g8
Documentary on what the corporation is and how they exploit governments and that if they didn't oppress people they would be neglecting their duty. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pin8fbdGV9Y .
Great documentaries. Should be required viewing for everyone.
Unless you want to actually get educated. Then you should probably read books and journals instead of watching frivolous and biased documentaries. But, you know... that takes effort.
+1 for books, they are truly superior.
no effort is pretty nice too though ;-D "frivolous" seems a bit extreme. Maybe slightly irrelevant
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
lol. What do you mean by "decent" information? As if there is a shortage of published material arguing a multitude of perspectives that don't agree. I'm not arguing that either of those documentaries portrays the "correct" perspective or even that they are not bias. They serve a decent purpose. There is enough fact or otherwise interesting information presented in such a "lite" format that i think they're worth mentioning to people. If even a few of the thousands that view those documentaries become interested enough to do something like read Zbigniew Brzezinski's books or Noam Chomsky, or whatever your beliefs are I think it's less than "frivolous".
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: I have watched them and they're filled with half truths and a skewed narrative. In fact, we've had the very conversation on these forums on whether corporations are psychopathic or not.
See, when you actually study political science or economics, and I don't mean looking something up on Wikipedia but ACTUALLY learning decent information about them and the reasons behind things and the reasons behind those things, etc., you begin to see that the world is not a black and white picture where everyone is out to get one another or where egomaniacs and mega-entities secretly try to take over the world or because they want to become #1 in everything possible. It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Maybe my good friend Karl Marx learnt about politics on wikipedia. That's why the dozens of other great philosophers that followed his path during the XXth century were wrong. Should we make a list of all the people who learnt from capitalism on the internet? We can start with people like him or Rosa Luxembourg and we end up with folks like Badiou, Zizek or Toni Negri.
Seriously. You like it or not, but understanding the issue with capitalism is not that complicated. Understanding the whole system is. But that's not the point.
1- Big companies are owned by thousand if not dozen of thousand of shareholders who sometimes don't even really know where their money is. All they expect is a return on their investment. Which is kinda normal if you think about it.
2- CEO and managers of the companies are responsible solely in front of the law and their shareholders.
3- Companies do everything they possibly can to make as much money as humanly possible in the shortest amount of time. It includes lobbying on government on their advantage or doing absolutely criminal things if the law somehow allows it (the way american oil companies behave in south America or the scandal with Total in Birmany are small but representative examples).
4- All the other factors are secundary. You talked about "ethics" (whatever it means in such context), ethics is just a way of doing money fast or assuring the long term run of the company For example, Nike adopted its "ethic chart" when consumers started to look at them differently after the scandal of their child workers in Indonesia. Thinking that Nike gives a fuck about the child workers would be ludicrous.
I don't say that companies are evil. I don't say that people who run them are bastards (although sometimes...) But their is a reason why people fight capitalism as a whole: because this system is plainly pathological.
Now we can discuss if it is the "best system except all others", the best compromise (à-la-Fukuyama) or if any attempt to fight against it will lead us back to gulags (à-la-Bernard Henri Levi), that's another question. But you don't need a PhD in economics to have an opinion on capitalism.
I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smashed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foreign aid _despite_ these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to believe so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
While I understand the grief caused by the cost of the summit, I think it's really disgraceful to see stunts like these pulled. Violence does nothing but trivialize their "cause"and to be quite frank, I imagine a lot of these protesters have very little idea what the summit is about or what they are even protesting. As an example, a few guys from work took leave this weekend to protest; when I asked them why, they said "it looked like fun". I realize that not every protester is this ignorant, but by displaying mindless acts of violence that will hurt the people of Toronto even more is simply ridiculous and childish.
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
Actually it's a lot more than that.
- to host the Summit, its costs over $25 million in security alone and this comes directly out of the Canadian taxpayer dollars. That is only one expense. We're paying for ALL of it.
- Ontario Premiere passed a bill without a vote, which gives police officers the right to lock you up if you don't let them search you or have you i.d. yourself within 5 meters of the fences. You could face up to a year in jail, or pay a $500 fine.
That's only two things. The Summit is a joke.
With that said, the news agencies are only showing the ugly. Every other demonstration in Toronto has been rather peaceful. There will always be a few bad eggs. There is no denying that. There's a lot of things to be bitter about with the Summit landing here. Of course nothing good will come out of their protests as there are too many groups advocating for different things. They just want to voice their displeasure in the end. -_-
On June 27 2010 20:07 Jibba wrote: It's comprised of mostly rational actors who deal with issues like ethics, societal influences, private pressure and who mostly make rational decisions that sometimes don't turn out well. .
Oh. You mean like BP. Or Goldman Sachs. Ok, thanks for clearing that up. Now I totally understand.
Education on the internet comes with a price, that being most of the information is bad.
This statement is ludicrous. The amount of documentation, historical records, news sources, video from around the world, websites and blogs that examine every aspect of human existence is mind boggling.
Just because the average person sits behind their computer and plays video games, watches porn, and occasionally reads some random bit of information from some biased news source or a YouTube video some looney made somewhere does not mean "most of the information is bad".
It simply means that the average person makes poor choices, does not lift a finger to do basic research, and in many case cannot put together coherent thoughts on their own. This is not the fault of the Internet.
Some might blame a corporate world for breeding people like that from a very young age, through a programmed consumer mindset and insipid advertising brainwashing. But I digress.
Neither one of the documentaries I quoted "came from" the Internet. "The Corporation" is award winning, very well put together and raises a lot of essential issues that anybody would be well served to consider.
I believe "Money as Debt" was produced by the Mises Institute, who have been around far longer than the Internet. Its a neat little entertaining film about the basics of the banking system, that will teach any average person the fundamentals and the associated problems if they spend a little bit of time and effort to watch it.
I didn't quote "Zeitgiest" for good reasons.
Honestly, I wouldn't even be on here typing all this out if I didn't think you were doing people a dis-service by summarily dismissing them.
Believing that there is a coherent scheme to international banking is a product of that. The biggest fault is that the situation as a whole is completely incoherent and I would bet $5 that there's not a single person who understands how it all works, because it is too complex, policies too convoluted and there's too many actors with their own exceptions.
Using complexity of systems to excuse criminal behavior is not in anyone's best interest. Regardless of the complexity of a system, there is always a way to at understand the root dynamics in somewhat simple form. This way you can cut through the layers of B.S. on top and see the truth.
The fact that the majority of the world's banking system is built on sand is patently obvious to any 10th grader that can grasp the basics of the system. Simply understanding the little mathematical mind games that banking and financial systems play on the public, can go a long way toward seeing toward the layers of deception they have been playing on the world for hundreds if not thousands of years.
National central banks use fractional reserve lending along with fiat money - like a huge vacuum cleaner that sucks all the wealth and prosperity out of the nations of the world - these little math tricks fuel corporate rape of entire civilizations, and they enslave the entire world with phony fictitious debt.
To say that a documentary can't teach the public that, because "the situation is completely incoherent and there is probably not a single person that understands how it works" etc etc
... this is a cop out. Not everyone protesting G-20 is smashing cars, and I'm sure plenty of the people there read books and journals. Like I do.
Honestly I think you are posting what you are posting, because you get some kind of a feeling of intellectual superiority by sticking up your nose at things just for the sake of it.
But if people on here want to understand some of the issues that are being protested at G-20... don't listen to this guy, they're definitely worth watching.
On June 27 2010 22:07 Accer wrote: . As an example, a few guys from work took leave this weekend to protest; when I asked them why, they said "it looked like fun". I realize that not every protester is this ignorant.
Maybe they just said that because they judged by looking at you that to explain to you why they would do it would be an akward and cumbersome discussion, specially if you are a collegue and you want to remain diplomatic about the relationship. So they say they do it for fun so they dont have to talk about it.
:D thats my analysis, and ive done it several times too myself. Its really no biggy.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
France wasn't a democracy at the time of the revolution - Those people didn't have the option to vote their monarch away.
And yes we do live in democracies, and I think that's why these people are so angry because even if they 'care' a lot more about something they only have one vote just the same.
The fact that these guys lack what you call a positive idea just make them even more retarded but even if they had one they still don't have the right to violence. You have one vote that's it. You may also start a party to gather support for your idea in a more organized fashion. But when you while threating violence _demand_ that people agree with you then you have crossed a line. These people are fighting against the very spirit of democracy and equality - they believe that their opinion is worth _more_ than that of others and they are willing to burn and sometimes kill for it. They are criminals and their arguments are voided the second they raise their torches.
On June 27 2010 20:57 KlaCkoN wrote: I used to sympatize with people like this when I was a kid - then they burned down my hometown during a EU summit a bunch of years ago and I have hated them with a passion ever since.
A friend of my mother's work in a bank and as the mob decended on their building everyone ran upstairs and shut the security doors behind them - she wasn't fast enough and got left behind. She was hiding in a closet literally pissing herself as a horde of masked armed men smahed the entire place to pieces. She was shaking as she told the story.
These 'protesters' (they show more similarities with an orc horde imo - both in morals and actions) are not achieving anything but alienation. 'Normal' people hear of the causes they 'champion' and they come to loathe them. Personally I keep voting for more foriegn aid _despite_ of these people and not because of them. And everytime I read something like this it gets a little harder.
They are not representing some kind of democratic process, no matter how much they would like us to belive so. Neither are they championing our freedom. They are young men who are of the opinion that their one vote and their democratic right to speak their piece and enter elections isn't enough. They think they deserve more - because they are in the _right_ and people need to _listen_. More than anything they remind me of the unemployed youngsters fighting Hitler's cause as he took control over Germany.
I support protests - When the governement here wanted to pass a law that essentially allowed a branch of the military to listen in on any phone conversation - read any email etc without court order I was on the streets screaming. But we didn't fucking break anything. And in the end the law was made somewhat less harsh. If you actually have the support of the the people you can change things, if you don't then try to convince them to agree with you. If they still don't agree then you need to accept that. You don't have the right to take up arms and If you think it's fine to ruin other people's lives because they don't 'understand' the way you do then you are a criminal - a thug and a worthless human being and you deserve to be locked up.
I don't completely agree, for two reasons:
1- With such reasonment, we wouldn't have had French Revolution, nor May 68.
2- From a radical point of view we don't live in democracies and there is no way the system can be changed peacefully. Which is not that stupid if you think about it.
I see the problem differently. Theses guys don't fight for something. You can't fight without a positive idea. That makes their revolt is empty and nihilist, and more than everything else, ununderstandable and therefore inefficient.
France wasn't a democracy at the time of the revolution - Those people didn't have the option to vote their monarch away.
And yes we do live in democracies, and I think that's why these people are so angry because even if they 'care' a lot more about something they only have one vote just the same.
The fact that these guys lack what you call a positive idea just make them even more retarded but even if they had one they still don't have the right to violence. You have one vote that's it. You may also start a party to gather support for your idea in a more organized fashion. But when you while threating violence _demand_ that people agree with you then you have crossed a line. These people are fighting against the very spirit of democracy and equality - they believe that their opinion is worth _more_ than that of others and they are willing to burn and sometimes kill for it. They are criminals and their arguments are voided the second they raise their torches.
I have a poster on my wall which says "If voting changed anything, it would be illegal".
Your point of view is absolutely valuable if you start from the idea that we indeed live in democracies where everybody is equal and free. Well... Many people consider it's absolutely not the case. If you look from their perspective, maybe you will understand why theses guys are burning cars (which is not such a big deal, btw.)
Democracy, if we refer to Plato, is the government for thoses who don't have a specific title to govern (the rich in a ploutocracy, the savant in a technocracy, the old in a gerontocracy etc...): they are the demos, the people. Tiding up he fact that there are elections and the fact that the people decide has been proven wrong. In a capitalist society, the power is much more between the hand of the Capital, means mass medias, great corporations, financial oligarchy, than people as such.
There are many very serious contemporary philosophers who have worked on making a very clear distinction between representative parlementarism and democracy which is therefore not a form of government. If that interest you, a very very good book, The Hate of Democracy, by Jacques Rancière.
Being a Toronto resident, I'd like to share my views and understanding on this.
1) There were actually several different groups of protesters. There were the people who did not like the fact that their streets were shut down and people who lived down there were essentially forced to flee, the people who felt their rights were violated due to the search policy, there were many curious spectators, and there were the anarchists (Black Bloc mostly). This last group were the violent ones. For the most part, none of the anarchists cared about their message. I did not see them try to contact any of the media, and in fact tried to burn down media vehicles. I still do not understand what they want.
2) The police believed that the anarchists used the violence to try to distract them or lead them away from guarding the fence. This may or may not be true. Maybe they just wanted to break shit.
3) It should've never been held in downtown Toronto in the first place. Our PM is a moron and I now thank everyone who voted for him. Sarcastically. He essentially picked the place that would cost the most economically (both in cost and opportunity cost), disrupt the most people, be the hardest to secure, and where rioters would cause the most economic damage. I have never hated a politician as much as our current Prime Minister. The Chief of Police were begging regular citizens to clear the area so that the anarchists could not hide amoung them. Well maybe you should've thought of this before you held this Summit *in the most populated city in Canada*.
4) The police handled the situation quite well. There were only 3 injuries before I stopped watching the coverage, so whoever said we should take a lesson from the States is wrong. From what I can tell, this is a big incident for Canada, but still a baby riot compared to what happens in the States. Yeah, there will probably be some lawsuits and there will be a questionable circumstance of brutality or two, which I see as pretty much unavoidable when considering the number of police and people as a whole.
5) I agree with extreme measures if things have gone too far, to the degree that only the guilty parties are hurt (a la V for Vendetta). The anarchists ewre not anything like that. I read a tweet that breaking the windows of innocent storeowners in order to solve poverty makes as much sense as punching old ladies in order to solve global warming - this is a good summary. I'm not sure how many Canadians took part in the violence; I am ashamed of each one that did. I bet our PM and the world leaders don't give a damn about this riot, and this destruction served no purpose.
On June 27 2010 11:26 Severedevil wrote: People are breaking shit to protest a peaceful meeting?
Of all the things to get violent over...
Actually it's a lot more than that.
- to host the Summit, its costs over $25 million in security alone and this comes directly out of the Canadian taxpayer dollars. That is only one expense. We're paying for ALL of it.
- Ontario Premiere passed a bill without a vote, which gives police officers the right to lock you up if you don't let them search you or have you i.d. yourself within 5 meters of the fences. You could face up to a year in jail, or pay a $500 fine.
That's only two things. The Summit is a joke.
With that said, the news agencies are only showing the ugly. Every other demonstration in Toronto has been rather peaceful. There will always be a few bad eggs. There is no denying that. There's a lot of things to be bitter about with the Summit landing here. Of course nothing good will come out of their protests as there are too many groups advocating for different things. They just want to voice their displeasure in the end. -_-
I'm pretty sure the security costs just by it self goes well beyond 500 million, not 25. If it was only 25 the entire costs of this damned thing wouldn't be over 1 billion for two days.
Anyone caught destroying stuff should be thrown in jail and kept there under the anti-terrorism act. Let the fuckers dwell on that the next time they want to go smashing up innocent peoples livelihoods and shops. That said, most of this was just the byproduct of the same derailing assholes that do this shit every time the meeting is hosted, with the vast majority of protesters being totally peaceful. To say nothing of the overblown coverage the media gave to this...
edit:
3) It should've never been held in downtown Toronto in the first place. Our PM is a moron and I now thank everyone who voted for him. Sarcastically. He essentially picked the place that would cost the most economically (both in cost and opportunity cost), disrupt the most people, be the hardest to secure, and where rioters would cause the most economic damage. I have never hated a politician as much as our current Prime Minister. The Chief of Police were begging regular citizens to clear the area so that the anarchists could not hide amoung them. Well maybe you should've thought of this before you held this Summit *in the most populated city in Canada*.
Give me a better option? There's no way in hell I'll be voting for Liberals after the gun registry and the attempts at marijuana legalization, which leaves the NDP (LOL as if) and the Green (woohoo throwing away my vote ftw).
EPT
