Leaderboard

That opinion seemed to me to be nothing more than the malicious spew of someone who does not like gun owners, does not like what he presumes their culture to be, and feels comfortable in denouncing them for it. He never even tries to justify his beliefs with the suggestion this would do anything about crime. Never even mentions hunters. To him, people with guns are just bad, and besides, they won't vote for his political party, so the hell with them. Take away their guns and (he repeats this) put in place heavy prison terms for any who dare to refuse! Notice he never mentions actual violent criminals shooting up cities, as if they're not important. Then in a throwaway line at the end says "oh, and uh, step up border controls to keep American guns out" as if that was even remotely possible. This is just a lefty who hates gun owners and like a lot of the left, feels perfectly comfortable in his hate and contempt, and in having the government punish those who deviate from his own views. There is no acknowledgement that compromise is the basic building block of a democracy, just a zealot's uncompromising disdain for those who think differently.

You know Robinhood was armed right, with out his weapons' he be just another wingnut dressed up in green tights, living in the trees...

Its opium. He is solving a murder case.

Trump is also working within a system with deep democratic principles of law. He's doing his clumsy best to disassemble those principles, appointing yes-men to every position, firing all the watchdogs, decrying the media as 'enemies of the people', and calling for investigations of his political enemies. He now has an attorney general who has banned all investigations of Republicans and will seemingly do anything he's told. That AG is busily appointing like-minded people into the Justice Department even as Mitch McConnel, perhaps the greasiest leader of the senate in history, packs the courts with unprincipled zealots of the far right. Give him a little more time. Time to pack those courts. Time for his Justice Department to investigate and arrest Democratic politicians, time for laws to be changed and then used against the media that criticize him. There is no one in his party who would protest any of this. They would be yapping their support all the way.

Rex Morphy ? That shape-shifting rapscallion - is he back ?

We already have governments at extremes. The federal government is a coalition government run by a group of people that admire the basic dictatorship of China (Trudeau's own words), praised Fidel Castro upon his death (Trudeau and Singh), make apologies for the Maduro regime in Venezuela (half the NDP), and had the leader of the Quebec Communist Party run as an candidate to be an MP (Bloc Quebecois). This coalition does not believe in constitutionally protected freedom of speech (which Canada does not have, see section 1 and section 33 of the charter) and want to silence whatever they deem to be "hate speech", does not believe in separation of media and state as a basic principle of democracy (see the never ending media bailout and ever increasing funding for CBC/radio-canada), instead they would like the government to determine what is "fake news" and what is not, and does not believe in equal application of law (compare the application of law to people that threw gasoline or burning tires on trains earlier this year to the application of law of excessive fines to people walking in a park or using public transportation). The government is out of step with other developed countries (Australia, Japan, US, Europe) in its desire to please the Communist Party of China and uncritical support of the WHO, which has Tedros Adhanom, a communist, as its head. Canada still fails to support Australia's bid for a full independent inquiry into the origins of COVID-19, and still fails to recognize Taiwan as a country, at the bidding of the Communist Party of China. This recent pandemic has helped to shed light on the authoritarian nature of some of those in power. Trump is another example of an extremist in power.

It is slippery slope to adapt any kind of populism, any kind of "masses" only leads to atrocities in the long run. My opinion based on history. Every time "the people" had the power bad things happened.

1) Okay? What does that mean, other than what it means at face value? 2) Find me anything where he says he wanted to be a "uniting figure". Let's hold each other to the same standards, okay? 3) That's utter nonsense and completely backward. If anything, being negatively compared to someone you don't respect makes the shame even worse. This isn't a bubble-world where it's academics vs academics only. There's an audience - there's actually a world outside the lecture halls. It's difficult to overstate how embarrassing the Lindsay Shepherd case is for WLU, regardless of how much the professor's disrespect JP. I can guarantee you the university was highly embarrassed and broadly ridiculed. That has an effect. 4 and 5) Can you give me many/any examples where Peterson wasn't speaking civilly to or against his opponents? Why does his financial success somehow invalidate his arguments? It's not like university faculty and administration hasn't been whoring itself out for decades. That wasn't a blanket statement, by the way, but these institutions are FAR from the beacons of intellectual freedom that some would have us believe. 6) Penthouse would be a bizarre partner, but then how "wrong" would it be? If they did support his research, what would that actually mean? Can you qualify the moral objection here? 7 and 8) Doesn't matter. You've already acknowledged that there's a culture-war, and that the average person knows about it and has an opinion. I'd argue that we've already seen part of the outcome - Trump, Brexit, yellow-vests, populism etc. 9) You didn't comment on an individual. You generalized and ridiculed his entire following, and in much more colorful language than I ever did. You weren't even talking about his arguments or positions, you were just characterizing anyone who followed them....as incels. I mean...come on. Are you even reading what you write? 10) He may have missed a magical opportunity that you've decided was his to grasp, but he's still brought awareness to deeply-rooted problem with modern academia and that in itself is a good thing.

Lol geez Di you are in a critical mood. I like to think of Trump followers as wrestling fans. They do not really believe the script. They do not take it literally. They see it as a parody. They see him acting out in exaggeration their distrust of being told what to do. He's just what wrestling fans call a "mouth". Those are wrestlers that sound great when interviewed. He's like a Hulk Hogan. He's a parody to them. Its a wierd world for them. They just assume all politicians are liars so his being one is not the issue-it is who he insults they like. Its a collective madness in one sense, brought on by a history of dishonest politicians. If you really want to see the distrust of Americans to their government without as much insulting of others, try on Jesse Ventura. If he ran he would be elected tomorrow. Is Trump stupid. I suspect myself he is a demented loose cannon at times but I think off stage he is laissez faire and has no direct say in anything but fires people deliberately thinking it fuels better work and makes him look tough to play up his ego and image of tough guy. Its a 60's management belief his father brought him up on-humiliate people-keep them fearful to get the most work out of them-respect through fear. Its not so much stupid as it is dysfunctional.

I just find it ironic, that you stated that your done talking about fire arms , then go on to continue to post about fire arms. Yes he may decide to go postal, but according to stats thats not very likely, as it rarely happens (29 deaths in 30 years)that a legally owned fire arm is used in a homicide......Maybe I should hide underneath your bed with you....I have a much higher chance to get hit by lightning....OH wait your not scare of lightning to are you.....But these guns in the hands of criminals does not bother you.... The entire country has been dealing with these firearms with no problems,up until Justin woke up one day and decided to cancel one more thing in our lives, because some liberals pants get wet when you mention fire arms.... Here is a suggestion, lets concentrate on real world problems, like how to get our country back on it's feet, putting people back to work, fixing our medical supply problems, fixing our medication supply problems by manufacturing it ourselves... But thats not the liberal way, they need to make up a some lies to distract Canadians from what is really going on...

One of my offices is in WY, and we have assets scattered all over the place in remote areas. They simply don't get bothered by criminals. When someone first gets there, they are given the instruction to call out to an invader - so they will look at you. You are advised to put a round right between their eyes. You can legally kill someone in self defense, but there needs to be evidence that they are coming towards you rather than away. The placement of the shot is so you don't have to waste any time with cops and lawyers. Since nearly every adult male is carrying (and a significant number of females), seldom does anyone provoke a response by trying a criminal act. The remote areas? I assume even the bad guys know that if you do a nasty, someone, somewhere in the state is going to catch up with you and the consequences will be severe. Here is SK, we have an area around the Battlefords that is the highest crime rate in Canada. A few years back, someone people came into the farm yard of the Stanley farm, armed and inebriated and began stealing vehicles and accosting family members. The driver (who had a loaded rifle) was approached by Mr. Stanley with a handgun and in the ensuing scuffle, the gun accidentally discharged and killed the driver. After an armed conflict, it took the police well over a quarter hour to respond. SO, what was he to do? Watch his property and family suffer at the hands of the armed, drunken criminals or try to do SOMETHING to stop the attacks and theft. The law is AT LEAST 15 minutes away. Ask the criminals to wait??????? (BTW: spare me the violins from the Liberal talking sheets - you weren't in the interview room or courtroom to hear the whole story). In a rare instance of judicial clarity, he was found not guilty of second degree murder. I don't like the idea of a bunch of weapons in every household, but I like even less the idea that the virtue signalling politicians will take away the rights and privileges of millions of law-abiding Canadians to buy the votes of the politically correct set while doing NOTHING to protect the citizens from actual criminals. When the consequences of getting caught are essentially nothing at worst and getting sent to a rest home to get a good education in how to commit more and better crimes while furthering your criminal network we are going in the wrong direction. BTW: I caught a guy who had broken into one of my trucks a few years ago, and held him physically (until his accomplice arrived and helped him get free, grabbed him again and once more he managed to slip out of his jacket and with help of second guy got away. I was sorely, sorely tempted to pound the living crap out of him when he was alone and even more when his backup arrived, but a little voice in my head said: "you are in Canada and can NOT afford a charge of any kind that would screw up passport, etc.". We are in a small city, I live three blocks from the cop shop and it was almost a half hour before they got here. The only thing that saved the day was that when I was holding the thief down against the seat of my truck, his wallet slipped out of his back pocket and the RCMP found it burried in the snow. The little bastard snowed the courts and some kind of feel-good group who seemed to think that all he had to do was apologize to me and I would show up at his sentencing and put in a good word. When I pointed out that the little bastard was a career criminal in an organized crime spree who did NOT give up his accomplice, her response was that "there was no accomplice". She was so frigging stupid as not to realize she was speaking to the one of two people who knew with absolute certainty there was a second and critically important person (his handler - kid was a juvie, other was not). RCMP told me in no uncertain terms they would have charged me with a crime if I had tuned up either one of the pricks. We will move out to our farm in the future, and you can believe I will keep a really mean dog or two and any threat will be met with canine violence that the perpetrator will NEVER forget.

It has to do with government takings, which will be challenged in the courts. FN's still got screwed, but I don't see all Canadians just rolling over and giving up all their guns just because the gubmint demands that they do.

That should go well...the same way when government tells First Nation families to hand over their children ?

Interesting how Maduro wants to talk about the Bay of Pigs but not his fellow drug pushers like Noriega or El Chapo. I'm thinking if America really wanted him he'd be sharing a cell in supermax with one of those guys.

You do know we have a dictator....right?

Agreed. I don't doubt that sometimes they're right, but there's a statute of limitations on things for a reason. It's too easy to make these types of accusations where the alleged perpetrator really has no defence at all. Police: "Where were you on the night of Thursday Sept 23rd 1993?" Me: "Thanks for saying Thursday, that really narrows it down. I still don't have a fucking clue though." Police: "Were you at Kits Pub in New West?" Me: "50/50. But I didn't sire no ugly bastards like you. The ugliest girl I ever had sex with was still way better looking than your partner here. (No offence.)" Police: "I don't think you know how this works. We're not allowed to abuse native girls or beat up black guys anymore, so I've already gone through 8 stress balls this week. Crackers, on the other hand, are fair game now. I could really get into this." Me: "OK, ok, I'll play your game. I have no clue where I was last Thursday, I certainly don't know where I was 27 years ago." Police: "Do you have any witnesses that you weren't at Kits Pub?" Me: "Well now that you ask I did create an airtight alibi for the night in question, for no real reason, so yeah I have like 20 of them. I was at your mom's place with my hockey team." Police: "Dude, you're gonna be uglier than Rue when I'm done with you." Me: "Damn, what do you have there? A brick bat?" OK, even I have to admit, I seem like I'm pretty guilty of whatever it was that I could potentially be investigated for. Maybe staying ahead of the law is harder than it seems on tv.