mockingbird

Miss Meriam Webster disagrees. One entry found for pedophile. Main Entry: pe·do·phile Pronunciation: 'pE-d&-"fIl Function: noun : one affected with pedophilia I see you're still stuck with old dictionaries out in the boonies where you insist on spelling it "Encyclopaedia" Congratulations. You just made a complete fool of yourself.

Yes. That is exactly what I'm insinuating. The bill did not "keep the age at 14." The bill REDUCED the age to 14, let's get that straight. Let's try to avoid the nazi-like technique of doing something and then claiming to do the exact opposite.

I don't need any credibility. This is the internet. Ah the internet, a stab in the heart to socio-communist methodolgy countries. It's a serious allegation yes, and I have provided proof to back it up. You're a girl melanie. Do you think it is normal for a supposed first world country to legalize pedophilia? The conservative government did this in 1988, that is my proof. You wish to refute this? It looks like I'm hitting quite a few strings here. the mods are coming down on me too: This isn't canadian parliament, or canadian court. You can ban me, I'll be back under a different name, with a different ip. The internet killed off some of the oppression of the canadian government years ago, and I suggest you get used to that.

No. I've made the conclusion that there is serious corruption both morally and financially - In the Canadian government - With the Conservative government having a deep mean spirited attitude - based on their narcissistic personality - fueled by pedophilic behavior (or vice versa)- as evidenced by their 1988 bill which lowered the age of consent to 14 - something unheard of in America - And yes - If you take a look at some of these guys' computers, I guarantee that you will find child porn there, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people are engaged in / have engaged in illegal activities with minors. And yes - child pornography is common amongst certain types of narcissists. It's based on simple psychology you see. In my opinion, child pornography is based on the narcissists need to empathize with the child. Logic will dictate that someone who is seeking empathy from a child (I hope they all rot soon), cannot or is not capable of empathizing with an adult. Someone who cannot empathize with an adult, and has no need to (Is raised in a wealthy home, etc...), and for some cruelly unknown reason is elected to government, will either bankrupt the economy, or impose cruel and heavy punishment amongst the citizens, and quite often particularly amongst the poor. Why don't you have any empathy? I don't know. Maybe I came on a bit too strong on you. Maybe you're a little naive.

Personal observation over the last few years. It's no secret any longer where some of these canadians are getting their mean spirited devilish narcissism from. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these people were investigated a little further you'd find some really sick and disgusting stuff. In 1988, Ramon Hnatyshyn, a member of your bequeathed conservative party repealed any previous laws that would protect girls under the age of 16. In 1981 JEAN CHRETIEN introduced a bill (c-53) that would have PROTECTED girls under the age of 16. Maybe he's a criminal, but he's not a child molester. In 1988, the conservative party legalized pedophilia. No surprise, since without this, they would probably have some issues staying afloat.

It's pointless arguing with you. It's like a human arguing with an animal on why we require indoor toiletry. Go back to your child pornography surfing. Along with your pc buddies who saw it fit to reduce the minimum age of consent to 14.

That was very good. Cracked me up.

This is the most fucking dumb thing I have ever heard. It's like saying: "I like the walk for your wheelchair principle. It employs an exchange of one valur for another instead of a simple handout because of entitlement." No, you haven't. But I'll answer for you. Renegade's logic is that if you're in a slow tortuous process leading to death, that's ok. However, if you're going to die soon, then you should be helped. Your principle is sound, however in the real world, err's system works better. You seem to keep insisting on the efficacy and efficiency of the government, yet you fail to answer me why the government is open and willing to pay $40 a day for an adult to sleep in a shithole, rather than pay two thirds of that giving that person a chance to live on their own, get a job, and be what you would call a "productive ciitizen". Don't you see a little conspiracy in the fact that the government continues this behavior and keeps lugging in more immigrants, rather than to correct the problem? The answer is that there is a terrible evil strain of narcissism in the Canadian government. The conservatives, the liberals, but not so much in the NDP. A homeless Canadian has better food than a homeless Indian but has to brave a freezing cold winter. Let's not judge by survivability. You can't compare. I am sure that there are many homeless people who wish they could drop dead. No. This is not true. How many other countries have you been to? I have been to Europe, the Middle East, America... You can't compare apples to apples on this one. There are many torturous miserable places to live in Canada as well. You mentioned helping your kin etc... etc... Canada has to treat it's own citizens like family first. Hmm... Maybe it's because we're next door neighbors to the richest country in the world. Elaborate. I've got some good ideas for a welfare reform in Ontario: 1) Redistribute some of the money paid to homeless shelters to the welfare system. This way you keep out as many that CAN survive on their own. 2) Hire normally paid inspectors. You have suspicions that people on welfare are stealing the beluga caviar from your mouth, fine. Send an inspector to the basement to confirm that the guy is living in shit. 3) Lower the wages of the welfare politburo. Stop paying some idiot narcissist manager in the welfare office a tenth of a million dollars a year. Government jobs are suited to serve the public. There is no need, reason, or excuse for a narcissistic boss in a government position. He's not selling high priced packages, he's supposed to help the public and not hold round the table meetings with an abundance of starbucks and bottled water to discuss how he suspects Singh is buying too much fast food and how to come up with a plan to kick him off. I've got some more ideas but that's it for now.

This isn't about outrage. When you're hungry and have nothing to eat, you seek food and shelter, not family counseling. Churches never took upon themselves any role. The origins of churches helping the poor stems from missionary activities which continues until today in the third world. Charities are not required by law to fill an role. People out of the kindness in their hearts donate. Not because somebody with a name like Stockwell wants to live just a comfortable distance to the city with an overpriced automobile, and completely ignore the people who suffered and toiled in the city. The suburbs was meant for farmers. Fine, you want to enjoy your money, good for you. Once you develop a powerful political force however (Due to the ultimate failure of some urban societies, and the restlesness of the people therein), you are directly competing with the poor and homeless. You haven't answered any of my questions. I asked a reciprocal question of how many homeless shelters are located between vaughan and Newmarket. You freely proclaim that homeless shelters are "the role of charities and churches". I'm not failing "to provide any reason why charities and churches shouldn't fill that same role today." I am telling you however that they aren't in certain areas. We discussed this before. You lost that argument. You want to go through this again? In addition to the fact that such a government in itself OWES the public a certain guaranteed standard of living, I'll also mention that Canada is a participating member of the UN. It often likes to gloat that it is one of the best places to live, yada yada yada. Each federal government in succession also enjoys bringing in large hordes of immigrants especially when times are tough, in order to compete with the surviving population and "To replace the aging population and diving birthrates." Gee, I wonder fucking why the birthrates are diving.

In my view it falls to these in priority order: 1. Citizens themselves 2. Their friends and families 3. Charities I also only view the obligation as a moral one and only to be enforced by the consciences of the groups above. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 1) Obviously people on welfare can't take care of themselves, that's why they turn to the government for help. 2) They've already tried this possibility, that's why they end up in this situation. You dream of a perfect world man. Some "families" are abusers and molesters/ 3) Homeless shelters which you view as government charity no doubt have a lot of problems. For one, they discriminate based on age. Someone under the age of 24 cannot stay long term in a homeless shelter. They have to go to what is called a "youth shelter". Youth shelters are not for all people. And I suggest you take a stroll down George street Toronto's sick idea of wellsley street except for homeless people, if you have the balls, and see how many niggaz approach you for drugs and toothless druggies ask you for handouts. It's a mess. Speaking of the far north where you proudly enjoy living, do you know how many homeless shelters there are from Vaughan to Newmarket? 1.

Who's obligation is it to make an effort to provide a reasonable standard of living for the citizens?

The shelter system is not inefficient, the government is inefficient. Both you liberals and "conservatives" are stupid. The liberals continue with these programs instead of upping the welfare rates, and the conservatives want to cut these programs altogether. The difference is that the conservatives are stupid and cruel. At least the liberal's stupidity benefits some people.

I believe it is, or should be. I was trying to avoid, in this case, using the term 'the Jews', as I did not want it to appear derogatory or 'conspiratorily paranoid'. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well a fuck you to you and a great big fuck you to trudeau potznasher over there.

Let's argue a little for a moment and say that ontarians did knowingly vote for harris AGAIN after deliberately ignoring or just not being aware of the kind of damage he did to the poor and the homeless. I quote from this site: http://www.geocities.com/shortottawa/sheltersystem.html I think this is a war the narcissists have staged against the poor. Perhaps a really wicked way of ridding themselves of the competition. Maybe a lot of the poor and homeless are people who would have otherwise eventually ended up competing with the people who govern the jungle of a beauracracy known as the canadian government? I know it's a bit far fetched but it's a plausible theory. I think ultimately, Ontario and Toronto has a wicked ring to it. It's governed by children in the body of adults who do not have the ability to empathize with the downtrodden. Essentially, not what you would call an evolved society. Ontario is primitive, and there's not much you can do to change it as long as it's run by monkeys.

"Hebrews"? What's that supposed to mean pig skin?