All Activity

That's right, it didn't say a thing.

Oh? https://www.ctvnews.ca/saskatoon/article/saskatchewan-premier-says-2-people-charged-for-setting-wildfires/ Seems it's easier for them to blame Scott Moe, who is white, than the a holes deliberately starting the fires

Of course I do, it's not your money. LMAO! You let me know that works out.

Hypocrisy? ==== If I were Poilievre, I would make strongly the point that we Canadians get along.

Trash? I strongly believe that this crazy federal Liberal TGV idea is: -Mirabel -California

Hypocrisy? These same Canadian/Quebec voters who vote for the PQ/NDP decry Trump. Yet they are nationalists themselves. No different from Trump.

Trump is a buffoon. True. But many Americans vote for him simply because he stands for America. ====== In Quebec and Canada, There are many such people/voters.

Disagree. 1. Trump/America are not in a downward spiral. 2. Canadians primarily deal with Americans. We Canadians would be foolish to break our ties. 3. China? Canada China deal? Gimme a break.

These guys actually think they are clever! "Taco! Hahah got'em!"

I'm not sure detestation of a person or group is not hatred. But I know one thing, hatred is increasing and becoming a serious problem. People get addicted to hate, they want something to hate. Also I believe foreign influence is causing division among us, making us argue over something where there is no need for argument. To the point, it is dividing our society. Canada was once a bastion of tolerance and acceptance. But you can't just let things go on the way they are now. We've brought in hundreds of thousands of people from nations that do not cherish tolerance. So what we already believed in, not to hate shit, needs to be made a law for these people. That is, specifically and primarily, the islamic Jew-haters.

You wouldn't know humour even if it smacked you in the face with a cow pat.

LOLOL so now you're ANNOUNCING that you're having a mental health break down and you'll be repeating yourself?!? ROFLMAO!!! 🍿🍿🍿 [munch munch] 🍿🍿🍿

Okay I need it, so give me your bit, just make sure you remove all the Palestinian sympathiser bullshit first.

So you've never heard of cousin paste? LOL What the hell are you even talking about? It's bad enough you dredge up a post from the better part of a year ago but to do it just to make a stupid statement it's kind of weird

Except you don't have the right to say if a portion of my taxes goes towards it So you won't complain if I decide to support something that our taxes go towards that you don't like right? I believe Donald Trump is doing that with ice right now

Morals and legal outcomes are often wildly different. You're right, and I did say "it takes a lot of contradictory evidence to say that it was not "self-defence". 23-yr-old Mike Tyson couldn't say "I feared for my life" about a 79-yr-old man in a movie theatre who threw popcorn in his face. Could Karmelo have said it? With so many witnesses going against him? Maybe not. But if he had Johnny Cochrane type money, probably. I'd say that if he hadn't asked the cop "Was it self defence", and he got a good lawyer who could get the case on TV, and then drag the case along for a few months, while Anthony cried, and the lawyer talked about racism, slavery, and Jim Crowe laws ad nauseam... Forming an angry mob...

At least you're right to note the report you referenced in your thread title didn't contain a single thing about the arson, natives or free trips to the city you're otherwise blathering about.

I'm going to attach a flash light, a laser and a tape measure to an AR and call it a multi tool. "It slices! It dices! It's a level and a pointer. It can see at night and it can turn your enemy into a pink mist!"

Makes sense. They say the least trusting people in the world are the people who are the least trustable themselves

That'll be the day... LMAO!

Your assessment is your OPINION and not FACT.

This is only partially good advice. Yes, you should say you were in fear for your life... BUT morally speaking, you damn well better actually be so too. However, to say a jury has no choice but to acquit is wildly wrong. The legal standards are for what a reasonable person would feel in that moment under the totality of those circumstances. If someone pokes you with their finger, that doesn't mean you can get away with killing them with a gun just because you say you were in fear for your life.

By some of your 'morals' or lack thereof, sure! Trust me it's far more disturbing to hear you supporting terrorists raping women and children, murdering, torturing, and hostage taking But sure I'm certain the Kirk thing must be very disturbing for you🙄🙄🙄

It's also disturbing to hear you talk like Captain Kirk.

OK, that was funny for a left4rd jab. I'll grant you that one. Up until yesterday people were calling it a 5" knife. Then a 5" multi-tool knife. Now I think the consensus is that it's a 3.5" knife. 1) 'Tis not so deep as a well, nor wide as a church door, but 'twill suffice. 2) No, it looks like it a knife that was designed for people who need to say "it's a multi-tool, so I'm allowed to carry it here" on occasion. No, but it was egregious behaviour to stay after he was asked to leave. Wrong. One person from that whole team knew him. FYI it's possible to invite someone to a party and then find out that ten people there hate them. People had every right to ask him to leave, the majority of people were very clear that they wanted him out. And at the end of the day, none of that matters. Witnesses agreed that no one was violent towards him, and he was provoking people: He wasn't sitting there afraid of people, but then swearing at them all, and challenging them. OMG, listen to yourself now. Stabber: "I don't like the way they asked me to leave. I'm gonna stay here and stab someone." Judge: "SYG defence denied. Next." Can you imagine if your flimsy excuse for murdering people became the standard? And the answer is no, and was for every single moment of that encounter. Immediately after the incident with 17-year-old Austin Metcalf, Anthony told officers, "I was protecting myself" and "He put his hands on me. I told him not to" He's not describing "fear" of Metcalfe or the team in general. That's defiance and hubris. He only ever showed real fear of "the consequences of his actions". Even if he was unreasonably afraid, that's a legal defence that has been used successfully before. A woman in Minnesota called police, and when she went to the back alley in her housecoat, a cop shot her. He had no chance of getting off based on "reasonable fear", she just surprised him and he killed her. Anthony never killed Metcalfe because he was afraid. Not once did he say that he felt actual fear: not to the students in the tent, not to the police, and not in court. See his quotes above. That's all worthless speculation. Wrong. I'll explain at the end. It was a 79-yr-old man and a 43-yr-old man. If a 43-yr-old Mike Tyson wanted to make a 79-yr-old man think that he was gonna kill him, could he do it? I would say that the answer is 100% yes. And I think that there are tens of thousands of people that scary, although few are as capable. Even a crazy psychopath like little Charles Manson could do scare a person enough to think that he was gonna kill him. And if the theatre guy said "I thought for sure he was gonna kill me", then it was self-defence. I think that pro concealed-carry conservatives in Canada are probably akin to "healthy 8th month abortionists" in the US. They're there, but not in number. When put to the test, I think it's maybe 3%. In Canada I don't think many are in favour of concealed carry. We're not a handgun country. Here's my take on it. Karmelo's comments all sound like: "I warned him, then he put his hands on me". He never describes actual fear for his life, or a serious threat to his life or health. If a person kills someone and then asks a cop: "Was it self-defence?" I would posit that the answer is always "no". Because the person who did the killing is the only person who ever truly knows, right? And if they knew that they were afraid for their life, then their statement is more like: "I thought for sure they were gonna kill me", or "I had no choice." At which point it takes a lot of contradictory evidence to say that it was not "self-defence". "Officer, was it self-defence?" "No" If Karmelo talked to a lawyer before he talked to the police, his lawyer would have said "Your answer is always: 'I was afraid for my life', and then a jury will have no choice but to acquit them.