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?

Good. I'm Jewish and I'm pleased with this decision. Now it's time also to convert the catholic schools into public schools and/or to take away catholic school funding.

Sure go ahead. Please explain. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The national socialist party would translate in german to "nationaler sozialist"

I didn't raise any issues. YOU are the one who raised the stupidly ridiculous notion that all welfare money is spent on alcohol. LOL. I won't even go anywhere on this one. It's pointless arguing democracy with someone with a 12th century totalitarian brain. It is amusing to me how the canadian so called "right wing" equates "leftists" with the general view of what leftist means in the world. This is coming from someone who's ancestors decided that NO - the British were correct in their views of taxation without representation. You will never know the true meaning of what "right wing" or "left wing" is, so so let's make due without the petty histrionics. It's amusing to ME how people like you honestly think that they can make due without other people in society - notably the poor. Have you ever seen Titanic? Remember the part where the ship is sinking and the rich guy is asking his butler to poor him champagne? Just remember, when the shit hits the fan, we know what happens. It's the responsibility of the Canadian government not to flood the country with too many immigrants. These immigrants take away opportunity from the lower sector - the stepping stone - of the job market. Sure. Would you ask a Jew to work on his Sabbath, or a Christian to work on his holidays? Most workplaces don't take into account religious sensitivity in some situations, especially the part time jobs you deem so readily available. Maybe society is going towards a more secular trend these days, but some religious needs still need be taken into account. Not at all. In fact most rich people are not evil (Excluding Ontarians. Anyone who has the gall to vote for a government like harris for a second term is evil). It is people with your attitude, that fuel this idea in the first place. I disagree and this argument is invalid. To cut SA in half and then tell people how to ecnomize is just brazen. Do I dare say we are entering the classic argument of if hitler was voted in democratically, what does this make the population? If the population democratically elects a totalitarian and communist government, is it a democracy? My answer? No. The process that leads to such elections is despotism. The natural desire of a human being is to be free, I have to assume that most people in their right mind don't want to be governed by opression. Like I said, calling a social assistance or welfare program "Ontario Works" or a tenant oppression act a "Tenant Protection Act" is despotism on the earliest level. Once you mislead the public, then there is a niche created for these totalitarian governments to flourish. Exactly. If I am allowed to walk on the "Queen's Property" near a city, take some logs and build myself a log cabin, and sit on a rocking chair behind my door with a shotgun without being stormed by a team of ontario police then your argument would be valid. And we know what happened to a member of a group of Indians when they attempted something a lot less violent and a lot more legal some time ago. No. You haven't been contaminated by it, you are it. You probably live in some remote town with a large house, like a big fish in a small pond. It shouldn't be humiliating. You'd make a wonderful catchphraser for the national socialist party.

You almost complete the paragraph with politically correct hibber jabber, then complete the sentence with a trollish question. If you spend money on pornography, are you a degenerate? What? I shouldn't have asked that question? Well you shouldn't have asked that one. You are such a narcissistic moron, you can't even see beyond your own amoeba sized comprehension of society. Take an orwellian scenario for a moment. The citizen of this era revolts. Now take what you just said and place it in this context. This makes you an aspiring member of government in an orweillian society. Of course your higher upper buddies will have long ago stabbed you in the back, you'd most likely have ended up with the oppressed citizens. Well quite simply, as you can see in mike harris economics, he took money away from the poor, and gave it to the rich. Forget the moralistic scenario for a moment and just focus on this this specific action. Here is where you have a government who deprived the poor of their fruits and vegetables, so harris' yemach shemo's friend can build an expensive deck he will use nothing more for than to show it off to his friends. It's unreasonable to demand from him certain requirements when the job market provides no opportunities to meet these requirements. Furthermore as I said before it is inconceivably wicked to penalize somebody who IS actively seeking work while under OW. The government also refuses to take into account religious status of some of the recipients. Furthermore, to engage in your attitude and in the general attitude of the welfare politburo which is "The citizen is always lying", is what creates this "gap between the rich and poor". You also might try replacing "poor" with "good" and "rich" with "evil". No, it is not enough to sustain. And it used to be $525 last year, let's not forget that. It's funny harris spoke the same way as you do. Taking the model of the refugee and applying it to citizens who have lived in the country for a long time. Who else would take a lesson in living from Bangalore and apply it to a supposed first world country with such grandiose claims of a polished human rights record. Canada is somewhat of a trollish destination for a lot of foreigners, which they learn as they arrive, let's not forget that. If the state cannot claim responsibility for the wellbeing of its citizens, then this state is not a democracy. You can't impose a plethora of laws and by-laws, not to mention frivolous taxes on the people and expect that "each person is responsible for his own wellbeing." If you want a Mississippi then it's a Mississippi. You'll find the more you travel north, the more you'll find this socialist hellhole of an ideology prevalent. You just did defend them by saying you won't defend them. Oh, by the way, applying for welfare isn't humiliating. Being humiliated is humiliating.

I never agreed to "income redistribution" the idea in itself is totally communist. Society should pay for certain things however, such as welfare. Your idea that the welfare system is systematically abused is completely wrong. I used to think the same way before I saw otherwise. This is what the government brainwashes you into believing. The way people are treated you would think the welfare office would send investigators to investigate this "fraud." If there were statistics for actual investigations into welfare fraud, you would see (And I promise you this) a very low number of investigated cases. These ideas are fed to the public to discourage the spreading of information that such a program exists; and thus ultimately stop people from using the system in time of need, as well as to demean the people who are already on it. One of the main points of despotism is the withholding of information and the spreading of disinformation. Amongst other things is a big slide in living conditions between the rich and the poor. That would make harris and his cronies a despotic government. Define able-bodied. Able bodied to do what? Is it reasonable that a person should work at minimum wage at the only job that will hire him instead of receive welfare? Moreso, if this person is already on welfare, is it reasonable he should be asked to work in the starving state that he has to live? I know a guy who was on welfare and was receiving $525 a month (This is what they pay to a single person.) Now assume his rent is $450 for a room in a shared accommodation. You do the math. That leaves a measly $75 for his food for a whole month, never mind the phone or other luxuries like that. Do the math with that paltry amount and apply it to your life. When you have worked out a budget, let me know. The budget is simple. Either this person is lucky and has a cheap room with some friends - or mosre likely in most cases - the guy has to get a bottom-of-the-barrel slum room. Total nonsense and spoken like a true harricite. I'll go through a certain excercise with you. Take yourself, let's say you work. You have a drive to work - you like the money it provides to you. Now take Mr Joe who is on welfare. Try to think of him as someone with a mind like yourself. What's the difference between you and Mr Joe? Simple. Mr Joe has found himself in a difficult situation for some reason and needs a little extra help to come out. Hello Mr Joe. Meet ontario works. Onario works will not only not help you, they will take away your desire to work by telling you that if you do land a job, you will be kicked off the system. Moreso, if your job doesen't work out, you have to wait a few months to reapply. Oh and did we tell you about the ow workers? They are nazis in beliefs and behaviors. They will interrogate you. They will demean you. I have a challenge to anyone here. Call up ow and apply just for the kick of it. When you return after the experience, I will explain to you why you feel like shit.

It's interesting that in the entire history of those who adhere to marxism, we find the most brutal opression of the poor. Let me explain to you how a part of democratic society works: a) People work. Some people cannot work. c) These people who work pay into a system that allows the minority of people who cannot work a means of rehabilitation or sustinance. If above = false a) People work. Some people cannot work. c) People who cannot work suffer and die. So speaking of "progress" do you think sabotaging a system which is meant to push society foward is a "progressive" step? I didn't think so.

The liberals are scum, but the conservatives would be disasterous for social assistance programs.

Stupid canadian.

Wrong. He got people off welfare, and they just came right back, more miserable than before. There are some vague statistics on reduced caseloads after the ontario works act came into place, but no in depth statistics to follow up on those people. It is a huge misconception that welfare has a lot of fraud. Welfare in actuality has very little fraud on the part of the participants. The fraud commited is actually on the part of the government. Information is withheld and misinformation is deliberately given to deter people from getting rightfully what is theirs. ontario works in itself has a nazi ideology to it. When the Jews were marching into Aushwitz, there was a sign that said "work makes you free." To name a social assistance program "ontario works" is an insult and degradation in itself to the abused who as a last resort seek assistance. Mike harris may he rot in hell after a lengthy torture didn't just seek to reduce welfare, he sought a means to impose a brutal system to abuse those that are on welfare and frighten those seeking to reapply (People who have never heard of ontario works do not know what they're in for). Quotas placed on delivery agents, bonuses offered... (Delivery agents - who are "social workers", are actually paid based on who they get OFF welfare and offered bonus incentives to treat people like shit.) Incidentally, this idea of forcing people to work for welfare was invented by Bob Rae. Mike harris may he rot took this a step further and implemented a system where the person is actually discouraged from working and forced to work at the same time. As for your "common sense revolution" mike harris is the biggest fool of all time. he didn't realize that there would be a huge boom in 97-98. In effect he tortured the poor and pleased the rich for nothing. All his cruel efforts were for nothing (For those who defend him, he himself only decided to make cuts to show off his supposed talent). He in effect only succeeded in depriving the poor of even more. Had mcguinty been elected in 2000 I believe we would be in much better shape now. Mcguinty is a loser now. My only question is how could Ontario vote for the same guy twice in a row? Is Canada the appitamy of evil?