drummindiver

Are you comparing Harper and Canada directly to Nazism?

Why would they build it anywhere near a reservation? What, so they can have a shit show like Caledonia and too many other places to mention? Walmart didn't get where they are by being stupid.

Lots of bigotry, especially against Jews and Americans. And disagreeing with a woman is not misogynist.

Retro Friday https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2r-HwwZQTY How do you get the video to come up?

I've answered all questions, some rhetorically. "My moral system" is not what we are exploring, but let me elucidate. I am a proud Canadian. I try to do no harm to ppl or animals. I don't cheat on my significant other or my taxes. I believe ppl that try to usurp Canada are traitors.

How were they traitors to England? This wasn't Englands' land. I thought it was FN's? Anyways, they didn't invade England, did they. And the Battle of the Plains of Abraham happened what, little over a hundred years before Canada became a country. What's your point with that?

He will only get 12 months if he refuses the conditions of the peace bond. Really, if he can't consent to not harm ppl, jail is probably the best place for him to ensure others safety. I think most of the soldiers that fought for our freedoms would agree with what is happening to Mr.Driver. Everyone has the right to be safe, and maybe jail is the safest place for Mr. Driver (and I am not saying that facetiously.) http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/Winnipeg-IS-supporter-is-not-facing-charges-but-will-face-a-peace-bond-to-restrict-his-activity-306298971.html

Michael, you are stretching. If/when we get invaded is not the same. We did not invade and conquer Quebec. They joined confederation. They are therefore Canadian. If we are overtaken by the American hordes, we are still Canadian. And to say Americans are traitors? Traitors to whom? England? Because they fought over land?

Yes, because terrorists are tortured in Canada daily. That is sarcasm. Just to be clear. Sorry, Jacee, I can't get that upset about some fella cheering for ppl killing Canadian citizens as they do their job. And btw, what has C51 got to do with this anyways? CSIS and the RCMP did their job. They monitored, they found this fella all over the place advocating and applauding some pretty heinous shite, and now want him to agree not to blow ppl up. Good work, CSIS and RCMP. "Court documents show justice officials have now applied for a peace bond against Driver under section 810 of the Criminal Code. This would allow them to place certain restrictions on his activities and freedoms in the community for a set period of time." So, if he doesn't agree to not hurt others, he MAY go to jail for 12 months. Again, agreeing to not hurt people should be an easy thing to agree to, shouldn't it? If injury or damage feared 810. (1) An information may be laid before a justice by or on behalf of any person who fears on reasonable grounds that another person (a) will cause personal injury to him or her or to his or her spouse or common-law partner or child or will damage his or her property; or (b) will commit an offence under section 162.1. Marginal note:Duty of justice(2) A justice who receives an information under subsection (1) shall cause the parties to appear before him or before a summary conviction court having jurisdiction in the same territorial division. Marginal note:Adjudication(3) If the justice or summary conviction court before which the parties appear is satisfied by the evidence adduced that the person on whose behalf the information was laid has reasonable grounds for the fear, the justice or court may order that the defendant enter into a recognizance, with or without sureties, to keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of not more than 12 months. Marginal note:Refusal to enter into recognizance(3.01) The justice or summary conviction court may commit the defendant to prison for a term of not more than 12 months if the defendant fails or refuses to enter into the recognizance.

Sorry, maybe I missed something? Loyalty to a foreign government because you are born within their borders? Does that not imply they are not then a foreign government? Loyalty to Canada because you were born here shouldn't be strange. (I could go OT here, but I'll refrain).

So, it says if he doesn't agree to certain conditions. I don't know what they may be, but something like "don't effin shoot up parliament", or "don't run ppl down with your car", or maybe, "don't plan to blow trains off the tracks" or any other number of imagined scenarios. Oh wait, imagined scenarios.....

lol... Following you around the forum? Delusions of grandeur much? Sorry palsy, didn't realize you controlled which forums people were allowed to read and post on. ..and, btw, you didn't hurt my feelings. Just wanted to correct your illogical in fallacy.

Jesus level hypocrisy. "When you don't agree with something, you resort to ludicrous ad hominem arguments about hypocrisy and bias instead of actually engaging with the arguments made. If you spent an ounce of the effort on actually debating the arguments made, instead of trying to discredit the people making the argumetns, I might have a reason to take what you post seriously. Until then, your posts are like a handbook for logical fallacies causing your arguments, if I should even dignify your points by calling them that, to have absolutely no merit. Get back to me when you have something more than whining about other people's biases and hypocrisy. Perhaps take some time to check your own for a change."

The main flaw in your argument is "Quebec's wish for independance". Voted on democratically, they have said no. Twice. My question is, as ever was, how many times do we have to ask the question? Until whomever gets the answer they want? And again, at what cost? You say there is no cost, that Quebec itself pays the bill. I disagree. To continually have our country in a state of flux, as JP did, is detrimental to our country.

...and ad hominem yours. Separatism or war? And you call me dramatic?

You said you were glad he found it in the dictionary. You then said it didn't equate to use in the real world. You did not, however, argue the validity of the definition. Which is what JP is.

As I've said repeatedly, and to which dictionaries also say, is that anyone looking to usurp your country is a traitor. Obviously you have no clue how tax revenues are divided up, or you would not make the claim we don't help support referendums. Your referenda is incorrect, btw. As to your flagrant lies about my previous persona on this forum, you are placing prejudices on me based on your false assumptions, then passing them off as fact. I don't think taking umbrage by false accusations is being sensitive. edit spelling

Yes, they pay the second most. As they are the second most populous. To say they pay for referendums (referedi, referenda ?) themselves is incorrect. Quebec does not impose a referendum tax. Their taxes go in the coffers, as do ours. As a side note, CC, I will expect an apology for your flagrant lies about my joining, and about my previous account. I have used one name only while using these forums, and your flagrant personal attack is repugnant, even by your standards.

..because dictionaries's don't what,define words and their meanings used in every day situations? Yes, their sole purpose is decorative. http://www.merriam-webster.com/help/faq/words_in.htm

"And there's the matter of equalization, which is separate from transfers. Quebec has come under criticism for being the biggest beneficiary of equalization over the last five decades and never being a net contributor. Of the $510 billion splashed across the country since 1957, Quebec has received $253 billion and has contributed $107 billion, a QMI Agency probe uncovered this year. In 2012-13, the government is doling out about $15 billion in equalization, including $7.4 billion for Quebec. Quebec will contribute $2.9 billion."

Quebec receives approx double what Ontario gets...including the years you specify .http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/equalization-payments-make-for-unequal-services-study "Quebec has been receiving equalization payments since the program was set up in 1957. It is the largest provincial beneficiary, receiving almost half of the $14.8-billion in federal transfers in 2011-2012". http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/quebec-is-like-a-social-assistance-recipient-says-new-oil-lobby-head?__lsa=9631-faa1 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/06/19/ontario_big_loser_in_equalization_payments_budget_watchdog_says.html "Overall, the percentage change in total transfers for fiscal year 2014-15 are: Newfoundland and Labrador (+0.5); Prince Edward Island (+4.7); Nova Scotia (+1.2); New Brunswick (+5.0); Quebec (+9.9); Ontario (-3.2); Manitoba (+0.2); Saskatchewan (+4.2); Alberta (+26.8); British Columbia (+1.0); Yukon (+4.3); Northwest Territories (+5.9); and Nunavut (+4.2)."

..and get back more than any one.By a huge margin.

OTTAWA - Canadians have given Quebec a quarter of a trillion dollars in equalization payments since 1957, half of all the money the program has handed out. Over that span of more than 50 years, Quebec has always been the biggest beneficiary, and has never been a net contributor to equalization. When we do the math we find that Quebec has contributed about $107 billion of $510 billion since 1957. Since it has received $253 billion, it comes out $146 billion to the good, which amounts to inhabitants of the province getting back $2.36 for every dollar they've paid in. Some ripoff.

The Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services notes that Ontario taxpayers account for 39 per cent of federal tax revenues but the federal government spends only 34 per cent of its revenues in that province. Some of that difference makes sense. A province with higher unemployment than Ontario is not likely to contribute as much, proportionally, into federal coffers. But it begs this question: are promises made by Quebec’s political class defensible when they also cost other Canadians more money? Answer: Not likely. Let’s compare Quebec with the three main “have” provinces under the equalization formula and do so on two Quebec campaign promises: tuition rates and hiring more doctors. Also, let’s add Ontario for reasons just noted, (I’ll exclude Newfoundland for reasons of space.) Quebec’s undergraduate tuition rates were just $2,519 this past year. That was: 38 per cent of what an Ontario student paid ($6,640); 44 per cent of the cost to a student in Alberta ($5,662); 45 per cent of what a Saskatchewan student paid ($5,601); and 52 per cent of what a B.C. student shelled out ($4,852). On physician ratios, in 2010, British Columbia and Alberta had 213 and 211 general physicians respectively per 100,000 people; the numbers for Ontario and Saskatchewan were 189 and 169. Meanwhile, the Quebec ratio was 224 general physicians per 100,000 people. Canadians, especially in provinces where taxpayers are net contributors to federal coffers, should pay close attention to the Quebec election. After all, they’ll be paying for a chunk of any expensive promises eventually delivered to Quebec’s voters. http://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/reformcommission/