blackbird
-
Posts
6,107 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
8
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by blackbird
-
-
20 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
Fortunately we don’t live in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia therefore the deities of Iron Age nomads and their alleged utterings have no relevance in a Canadian court of law.
This subject has nothing at all to do with Islamic countries. The problems with the justice system are right here now in our own country. Liberals and left politicians and their supporters are the depraved individuals who are to blame.
Unfortunately we live in a country where dangerous criminals are let off. The are often let out on bail or parole and go on to assault and murder innocent people. That is because we have a corrupt and evil system and government. Canada is a mess and people who keep voting for that kind of government are the primary problem.
-
13 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:
What don’t you understand here What if we had executed him and then it was changed to not guilty? What does your god say about thst?
The legal system, judge and jury, must follow the law and in a trial for murder, if there is any doubt the person is found not guilty. Every precaution should and would be taken to ensure a fair trial and proper outcome.
-
42 minutes ago, CdnFox said:
But the new evidence means that might very well be about to change. So if that changes - if he were dead then we would have killed an innocent man.
Wrong! He is not innocent according to the law. He would only received capital punishment if there were such a thing if he is guilty. You are assuming he is innocent which is not the case as the legal process found him guilty. A hypothetical argument you are making has no meaning in law or reality.
5 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:What don’t you understand here What if we had executed him and then it was changed to not guilty? What does your god say about thst?
Again you are making up false scenarios. He is guilty by law. A hypothetical claim by you means nothing in law.
6 minutes ago, BeaverFever said:Fortunately we don’t live in Iran, Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia therefore the deities of Iron Age nomads and their alleged utterings have no relevance in a Canadian court of law.
This has nothing to do with Islamic countries. Capital punishment for murderers is part of the Christian Bible in Genesis. You would rather let murderers escape what they deserve for their crimes. That is anti-Christian and rewarding extreme evil which comes from Satan. He loves that kind of thing. He was a murderer from the beginning. You need to accept that you are a fallen sinner who needs to believe the Bible and become a Christian before it is too late.
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
Good thing we didn't kill him then.
Actually I should have worded that differently. He was found guilty of murder. Unless that is changed, he remains guilty under the law. Capital punishment is ordained by God in the Bible, his written Revelation in Genesis 9:6 KJV. Don't let the Devil keep you under his control. You have been deceived and are simply believing what the demonic / evil spirits want. Same as everyone else who doesn't believe the Bible.
-
1 hour ago, CdnFox said:
THis is why we should NEVER trust the state with the power of life and death over it's people. Ever
Nonsense. Your argument is purely hypothetical because there was no death penalty when this guy was tried back in 1989. He could just as well have been found not guilty if there were a death penalty at that time.
So using his case to argue against capital punishment for murderers is meaningless because he never faced it.
We also don't know if he was guilty of murder. The court at that time found him guilty. Whether his argument for an appeal is legitimate or credible remains to be seen. Many convicted murderers claim they are innocent. So what does that prove? What do you expect them to say? Of course they will claim they are innocent and their lawyers will continue to look for ways to appeal. That is just how the system works. Lots of money to be made in the legal profession for everyone involved.
-
quote
Fraud: While the global warming alarmists have done a good job of spreading fright, they haven't been so good at hiding their real motivation. Yet another one has slipped up and revealed the catalyst driving the climate scare.
We have been told now for almost three decades that man has to change his ways or his fossil-fuel emissions will scorch Earth with catastrophic warming. Scientists, politicians and activists have maintained the narrative that their concern is only about caring for our planet and its inhabitants. But this is simply not true. The narrative is a ruse. They are after something entirely different.
If they were honest, the climate alarmists would admit that they are not working feverishly to hold down global temperatures -- they would acknowledge that they are instead consumed with the goal of holding down capitalism and establishing a global welfare state.
Have doubts? Then listen to the words of former United Nations climate official Ottmar Edenhofer:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with the environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole," said Edenhofer, who co-chaired the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015.
So what is the goal of environmental policy?
"We redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy," said Edenhofer. unquote
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:
Hmm... so just because a few (out of thousands or millions) do not issue warnings.. then that must mean that no one does. Wow... how do I get so out of touch with reality like you?
Do you know why some (not all) support the idea of easing someone off drugs (injection sites being a form of this)? Because expecting someone to go from full on addiction to nothing and there being no consequences is not realistic. But this is not your utopia so what other unrealistic fantasies about this topic do you want to espouse?
I am not opposed to easing addicts off drugs. You assume a lot just for the purpose of opposing the warning about drugs I posted. You are the one opposing warning about drugs and seem to be taking the Devil's side by not wanting people to be warned. Why would anyone in their right mind oppose warning people about drugs?
-
On 7/21/2023 at 3:52 PM, impartialobserver said:
Now for those who already addicts... your approach does not work. I have seen it firsthand and your types get tuned out. If what you want is to talk to yourself... why bother talking to addict?
I never said that this is the right message for addicts. But most of society are not addicts and need to be warned about drugs. Simple as that. We don't hear that warning from our illustrious leaders like Trudeau or left-leaning/liberal Premiers and politicians (BC NDP) or those involved in promoting free hard drugs and injection sites, (harm reduction advocates) but who seem to have a lot to say about everything else.
-
53 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:
you must live in another dimension or world. Most everyone I know is fully aware of the harm that illicit drugs do. Now, where we differ is that more realistic people that have ventured out of the house know that having everyone quit cold turkey is impossible. Therefore, being realistic and not using scare tactics is the way to go. If you tell someone the worst case scenario.. they will tune you out. I hate to be so harsh and realistic but your grasp on reality is tenuous at best.
You are the one who is not being realistic. Everyone obviously does not know or have a clue about the harm illicit drugs can cause to themselves, their families, and everyone in society. They may have heard vague things about the consequences of drugs, but obviously, they are not paying attention or don't care. The narrative which we hear from activists and academics and people involved with drug injection sites is always pandering and trying their best to not speak about the truth or harm drugs cause. The ideology is don't offend anyone because it might scare addicts away. Addicts don't care. They are busy trying to get their next fix. It is everyone else who needs to be warned against drugs.
Warning people, starting with young people in schools, is not "scare tactics" as you said. That is the most ludicrous statement you could come up with. You obviously are one of the lefties who don't think people should be taught or warned. Get a grip on reality.
-
On 7/20/2023 at 10:31 AM, impartialobserver said:
When and if the OP realizes that you can't completely eradicate drugs from a society.. maybe he will start being more realistic. It is not possible to 100% remove drugs from a developed society where folks have discretionary income.
Nobody said and the OP never said drugs can be completely eradicated. The point is young people and adults need to know and understand the dire consequences of experimenting with illicit drugs. All the nonsense from progressives and the left about avoiding causing stigma and it is strictly a health issue as if nothing else matters is a problem and only covering up the enormity of consequences of dabbling with drugs. Instead of covering up the facts of how serious drugs are and pretending it is not a crime against oneself, family and society, we should be teaching young people and everyone else what the consequences of illicit drugs are.
19 hours ago, herbie said:Exactly how I picture you.
-
On 7/19/2023 at 11:32 AM, CdnFox said:
This is what happens when we review history's leaders as if they should be held to today's moral standards or cancelled.
Tommy Douglas will never be cancelled because he is considered as a kind of god by NDPers, Socialists, and progressives. He apparently became a minister but sadly it appears he believed in a social gospel (Socialism) rather than what the Bible teaches, which is individual charity rather than state-controlled wealth redistribution (Socialism and Communism). He is considered by the NDP as the father of socialized health care.
-
21 minutes ago, herbie said:
If you believe the opinion of some hick cop is worth more than almost all doctors and health professionals, I'd have to point out that you are the one speaking nonsense.
I already know you know less than zero about the subject of addiction and spouting your nonsense creates only more harm to individuals so affected.
Sadly you have been duped. Pointing out the consequences of taking illicit drugs came from a police department that has far more experience in dealing with drug addicts and the consequences of drug addiction. I am sure they deal with it every day.
-
1 hour ago, TreeBeard said:
That might be the stupidest public “warning” that I’ve ever read. Why did you post it in the Canada Federal politics section of the forum?
Because decriminalization is a federal law issue and the drug crisis is right across Canada. It is a national issue and therefore federal politics is the best place to post national issues. I am not sure why you would say warning people about the consequences of taking illicit drugs is "the stupidest public 'warning". Are you a drug addict trying to defend it or what is your problem?
-
1
-
1
-
-
Illicit hard drugs are worse than bad. They lead to total destruction of people's lives and families. What is it with people who would question or oppose that kind of warning? I think I know what the answer is. There is Satan, the ruler of this world system and there are those who follow him.
-
On 7/18/2023 at 11:12 AM, herbie said:On 7/18/2023 at 9:20 AM, I am Groot said:
it's about mental health and not simply that they are a shit person who chooses to live their lives on drugs?
Again, what makes you think choosing a life of drugs in NOT a mental health issue?
Then I replied to your post about a life of drugs: herbie said: Aside from the most asinine source possible for any discussion on drugs, wtf does that statement have to do with furthering discussion. unquote
My post from the Arkansas police was obviously a reply to your nonsensical comment implying that a life of drugs is a mental health issue. What the Arkansas police said makes perfect sense to me. It doesn't matter who or where their statement came from. The fact that taking drugs in a choice and the harms from drugs are obvious to any thinking person.
You made the comment on drugs and I replied. How is it you find that problematic? Are you the only one allowed to comment on something you yourself said?
-
The Clarksville, Arkansas police hit the nail right on the head.
Quote
"My Name: "Is Meth"
I destroy homes, I tear families apart, take your children, and that's just the start.
I'm more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold,
The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.
If you need me, remember I'm easily found,
I live all around you - in schools and in town
I live with the rich; I live with the poor,
I live down the street, and maybe next door.
I'm made in a lab, but not like you think,
I can be made under the kitchen sink.
In your child's closet, and even in the woods,
If this scares you to death, well it certainly should.
I have many names, but there's one you know best,
I'm sure you've heard of me, my name is crystal meth.
My power is awesome; try me you'll see,
But if you do, you may never break free.
Just try me once and I might let you go,
But try me twice, and I'll own your soul.
When I possess you, you'll steal and you'll lie,
You do what you have to -- just to get high.
The crimes you'll commit for my narcotic charms
Will be worth the pleasure you'll feel in your arms,your lungs your nose.
You'll lie to your mother; you'll steal from your dad,
When you see their tears, you should feel sad.
But you'll forget your morals and how you were raised,
I'll be your conscience, I'll teach you my ways.
I take kids from parents, and parents from kids,
I turn people from God, and separate friends.
I'll take everything from you, your looks and your pride,
I'll be with you always -- right by your side.
You'll give up everything - your family, your home,
Your friends, your money, then you'll be alone.
I'll take and take, till you have nothing more to give, When I'm finished with you, you'll be lucky to live.
If you try me be warned - this is no game,
If given the chance, I'll drive you insane.
I'll ravish your body, I'll control your mind,
I'll own you completely, your soul will be mine.
The nightmares I'll give you while lying in bed,
The voices you'll hear, from inside your head.
The sweats, the shakes, the visions you'll see,
I want you to know, these are all gifts from me.
But then it's too late, and you'll know in your heart,
That you are mine, and we shall not part.
You'll regret that you tried me, they always do,
But you came to me, not I to you.
You knew this would happen, many times you were told,
But you challenged my power, and chose to be bold.
You could have said no, and just walked away,
If you could live that day over, now what would you say?
I'll be your master, you will be my slave,
I'll even go with you, when you go to your grave.
Now that you have met me, what will you do?
Will you try me or not? It's all up to you.
I can bring you more misery than words can tell, Come take my hand, let me lead you to hell."
-Clarksville Police Dept., Arkansas.
-
1
-
-
25 minutes ago, herbie said:
Pretending that addiction is not a "choice"?
Make that 5 in a row that don't know shit. Oh wait, still 4... one just wants to repeat himself thinking that will make it true.
"My Name: "Is Meth"I destroy homes, I tear families apart, take your children, and that's just the start.I'm more costly than diamonds, more precious than gold,The sorrow I bring is a sight to behold.If you need me, remember I'm easily found,I live all around you - in schools and in townI live with the rich; I live with the poor,I live down the street, and maybe next door.I'm made in a lab, but not like you think,I can be made under the kitchen sink.In your child's closet, and even in the woods,If this scares you to death, well it certainly should.I have many names, but there's one you know best,I'm sure you've heard of me, my name is crystal meth.My power is awesome; try me you'll see,But if you do, you may never break free.Just try me once and I might let you go,But try me twice, and I'll own your soul.When I possess you, you'll steal and you'll lie,You do what you have to -- just to get high.The crimes you'll commit for my narcotic charmsWill be worth the pleasure you'll feel in your arms,your lungs your nose.You'll lie to your mother; you'll steal from your dad,When you see their tears, you should feel sad.But you'll forget your morals and how you were raised,I'll be your conscience, I'll teach you my ways.I take kids from parents, and parents from kids,I turn people from God, and separate friends.I'll take everything from you, your looks and your pride,I'll be with you always -- right by your side.You'll give up everything - your family, your home,Your friends, your money, then you'll be alone.I'll take and take, till you have nothing more to give, When I'm finished with you, you'll be lucky to live.If you try me be warned - this is no game,If given the chance, I'll drive you insane.I'll ravish your body, I'll control your mind,I'll own you completely, your soul will be mine.The nightmares I'll give you while lying in bed,The voices you'll hear, from inside your head.The sweats, the shakes, the visions you'll see,I want you to know, these are all gifts from me.But then it's too late, and you'll know in your heart,That you are mine, and we shall not part.You'll regret that you tried me, they always do,But you came to me, not I to you.You knew this would happen, many times you were told,But you challenged my power, and chose to be bold.You could have said no, and just walked away,If you could live that day over, now what would you say?I'll be your master, you will be my slave,I'll even go with you, when you go to your grave.Now that you have met me, what will you do?Will you try me or not? It's all up to you.I can bring you more misery than words can tell, Come take my hand, let me lead you to hell."-Clarksville Police Dept., Arkansas.Telling people hard drugs are not a choice is ludicrous. Anybody thinking of taking any kind of illicit drugs should seriously seek help and give their head a shake. Anybody addicted should seek help and stop believing the defeatist nonsense that there is no choice to quit. It might be tough and they may need help and rehab, but it is possible to quit. -
3 hours ago, herbie said:
So four people in a row go out of their way to prove they know dick shit about addiction.
Oh we'll all just "decide" to be addicted. We'll just snap our fingers and decide not to be whenever we want. Yeah, right.
People often decide to do hard drugs. That is purely a choice. Nobody is forcing them. Wake up and quit pretending it's not a choice.
-
1
-
-
9 hours ago, herbie said:
Again, what makes you think choosing a life of drugs in NOT a mental health issue?
Because it's a choice.
-
3 hours ago, myata said:
FPTP is an existential threat to a functional modern democracy.
Changing the voting system to some other system will create a host of other problems and is not a solution. Lots of people think a so-called proportional voting system will solve the problem, but it won't. What it will do is take electoral rights away from many people and give those rights to political parties who will select candidates in certain ridings. The winners will not even be from those ridings. You end up with far more minority governments, governments that get defeated and elections more frequently costing taxpayers a fortune because there would be far more members of parliament chosen by small fringe parties.
The problem with the system is it is not a real democracy. The system is highly controlled by the media and they basically are able to decide winners and losers to a large degree. It is therefore a mediacracy. We are controlled by the media. They determine who gets what kind of publicity and support. The winning government in turn rewards them with grants and various benefits such as the new law that will force internet companies to pay small media producers lots of money. There are also laws that artificially favour Canadian artists and producers. This also is a form of payback for supporting the winning party.
-
1
-
-
If anyone thought we live in a democracy they are wrong; we live in a mediacracy. Election outcomes are controlled by the media and the government pays the media back with special grants and favours such as the new bill that will force internet companies like Google, Facebook, Meta, etc. to pay small media companies for putting their news items on the internet. One would think it should be the other way around; small media producers should be paying Google, Facebook, etc. for broadcasting their news stories. Of course this new law is just a form of pay back by the liberals for the media/journalists supporting the liberals. Media has the real power to determine who wins elections.
-
22 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
What’s your solution; fire everyone?
Never said to fire everyone. The Minister is ultimately responsible for her department and if she has been unable to manage it, then she has to go. The elected politicians are responsible for governing. That's how the system works. That is what they get paid the big bucks for.
-
18 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:
Why did you find it necessary to insult me just because I have a different opinion?
Proverbs 11:12 He that is void of wisdom despiseth his neighbour: but a man of understanding holdeth his peace.
Don't pretend you believe the Bible. We know you only twist it for your own perverse arguments. Somebody without knowledge who displays ignorance constantly fits the description of brainless or without brains. We know the only reason you make comments is to be contrary and provocative. So how is that a man of understanding or reason? You practically never agree with anything. That speaks for itself.
-
17 hours ago, TreeBeard said:
No one should be fired.
Just let them neglect the little kids so they can be abused and killed? Usual brainless comments.
Man convicted of 1989 murder of 10-year-old girl granted chance for new appeal (why we shouldn't have the death penalty)
in Federal Politics
Posted
Once again, false. You are making up purely hypothetical situations that do not exist. You are trying to make a case based on hypothetical claims. It has no meaning.