Jump to content

blackbird

Senior Member
  • Posts

    8,046
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by blackbird

  1. This is in response to those who say America is not protecting Canada. Sure they could if the U.S. was not protecting Canada. They could easily hit a few cities in Canada, like Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and the government would have to surrender right away or be wiped off the map. But because America is protecting Canada, it won't happen. We live off the coat tails of America.
  2. China and Russia both have lots maybe thousands of missiles. They have warships and many aircraft. China has something like a million trained soldiers. It wouldn't take much to take over Canada with it's miniscule military and practically no airforce or navy.
  3. Yes all political parties have failed to maintain our military. The defense budget should be at least doubled. The NDP are the worst. They believe in delivering foreign aid but not supporting the military. They live in some kind of alternate reality or dreamworld. Lot of peaceniks.
  4. China and Russia could easily take over Canada if America was not there to prevent it. China and Russia both have the military power to easily take over. Logistically yes they could. Canada has a very small military and very few military ships and aircraft.
  5. Trudeau, the Liberals and NDP love living off the military strength of America. Canada won't even meet it's NATO commitment of 2% of GDP spending on the military and Trudeau has no intention of meeting it. Trudeau talks a great line to the world about supporting Ukraine and sends 675 Canadian soldiers to Latvia to join NATO, but this is all virtue signaling. Trudeau refuses to step up and properly finance the Canadian Forces even though the Conservatives have been pointing this fault out for years. The NDP is strongly opposed to spending on the military. They live in some kind of pacifist dream world. Russia or China would walk right in and take over Canada's north if it were not for the U.S.
  6. The words cultural Marxism refers to today's liberal ideology which I am sure you must have heard and are well aware of. Multiculturalism is one of the official policies which tries to give equal prominence or respectability to all religions in Canada. We have freedom of religion in the Constitution which I agree with, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with other religions. I am still free to hold my own beliefs. A good example of the government's pushing their cultural Marxism is the motion and law against Islamophobia. Nobody tries to define exactly what that means, but we know what liberals think it means. It is a form of cultural Marxism. We still live in a western style, Judeo-Christian society and many of our laws are based on that. But liberal ideology is trying to destroy that and create some kind of cultural Marxist society. They want to root out all forms of what they see as institutional racism in the military for example and even have gone so far as appointing a special committee to examine the armed forces and change the culture. They were going to get rid of all ministers in the military who did not fit in with their cultural Marxist ideology, but backed away from that and said they can stay now or at least for now.
  7. No, it not a made up thing. Liberal Marxist refers to such things as cultural Marxism which the liberals/NDP are always pushing and trying to force on society. To them all cultures, all religions, all belief systems except Biblical Christianity, should be embraced by everyone. If you don't embrace liberal / cultural Marxism, you are a racist.
  8. Which ones would you agree with and which would you oppose or disagree with?
  9. I don't think the true God listens to liberal progressives that support or legalize things that oppose the Bible. The only god liberal progressives follow is the evil one, commonly called the prince of this world, the Devil.
  10. Really? What would you say about liberal progressivism on subjects like abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual orientation and gender identity, medical assistance in dying and now in the process of being legalized to include the mentally ill? Would you say liberal support of these agendas are "moral"?
  11. He said destroy them "metaphorically". Granted, he should have avoided using the word "destroy", but the fact he gave a long, detailed post of what the problem is demonstrates he is using words, not violence. He also showed his support for discussion but stressed the liberal/Marxists are not interested in discussion. I don't think he is advocating physical violence. So can you refute or debate the points he makes on feminism, racism, the class struggle, etc.?
  12. Exactly! It is not physically possible to inspect the alleged culprit's mind. It would be guesswork. Nobody in a robe or fancy suit could objectively tell the court what caused the crime. It seems Canada in it's quest to look like it is righteously upholding a constitution or Chart Right for an accused criminal, even murderer, must give an appearance it is bending over backwards. It thinks it can play god in effect. The whole idea is absurd. They should not be focused on a Charter Right because once an accused commits a crime there should be no Charter Right to protect them from accountability for their heinous crime. The accused should be judged for the harm they did and not for their decision to become intoxicated and then excused for the crime. That should be the rule and there should be no deviation, otherwise there is no justice. When one commits a crime, they should be charged and punished for the crime. Period.
  13. Many may agree with you, but also many would disagree. It seems to boil down to whether one is a liberal or left-leaning or a conservative-leaning. Liberal-left people seem more willing to accommodate people accused of crimes if the accused's lawyer can make a strong enough argument that the accused was mentally ill at the time of the crime. This is similar to the Supreme Court ruling of intoxication or the accused's lawyer claiming the accused was acting as an automon and didn't know what he was doing. Conservative-leaning people often don't accept that argument because they believe someone who commits a serious crime should be held accountable regardless of his state of mind at the time. Often the question of state-of-mind of an accused is very difficult to prove or discern because it is an abstract thing that has come and gone by the time the person is apprehended and tried. The problem with giving legitimacy to these things as a defence is they ignore the rights of the victim and their family who have a right to see justice. Letting the accused off may also put society at greater risk as well as sending the message the accused is getting off or getting off lightly. Letting criminals off on NCR or intoxication as a defence is also seen as the liberal soft-on-crime approach which it is. We have seen convicted murderers sent to aboriginal healing centres which led to a huge outcry from the public and opposition party. We have also periodically seen criminals let out on parole who went on to murder other people. In addition we periodically hear the police warning about a dangerous potential rapist who has been released in the community. These releases were all made by our courts and criminal justice system. In Victoria right now, groups of young people have been going into downtown, some with knives or bear spray, and creating mayhem and then being arrested. But as soon as they have been arrested, they have been released shortly after. There are countless cases of repeat offenders in cities in B.C. who have been arrested for crimes of various sorts and they have been released shortly after their arrest. Some dozens of times and even cases of individuals who have been charged hundreds of times and they spent little or no time in jail. Not criminally responsible a slippery designation: DiManno | The Star
  14. The Supreme Court just ruled it can be a legitimate defense. So some will get off because of the ruling.
  15. What is to prevent someone who wants to commit a serious crime from deliberately getting very intoxicated and then committing the crime with the view of using that as a defense? This just adds another possible loophole for a criminal to escape justice for his crime. The fact is the number of NCR (not criminally responsible) rulings is growing in Canada. This new ruling by the SCC will undoubtedly increase the number of NCR rulings. The difficult decisions in the growing numbers of NCR cases | Healthing.ca (1) LIST: Canada’s prominent not criminally responsible (NCR) cases | Globalnews.ca One peculiar statistic is there are over ten times as many people per thousand of population in Quebec who get off on the NCR ruling than in B.C. Quebec judges seem to have a much more lenient view and acceptance of the NCR verdict than the rest of Canada for some reason.
  16. Yes, I respect your opinion, even though we may not always agree on everything. I believe in freedom of beliefs and freedom of religion for everyone.
  17. The Supreme Court just created a new, huge loophole for criminals to get off. As Myata says, who is to say when an intoxicated person is criminally responsible or not criminally responsible for his assault, murder, rape, etc.? It is purely subjective or a matter of opinion. Whatever lawyer can make the most convincing argument wins. The crime itself is not relevant in this new loophole. The only question for guilt or innocence is whether the accused was acting as an "automon" or not. This is a new loophole created by the SCC which believes a so-called Charter Right overrides all common sense and criminality. Since it is impossible to prove what someone was thinking before, during the crime when he was intoxicated, the ruling essentially provides an easy out for those lawyers that can make the claim convincing enough that he was acting as an automon. A bizarre ruling because where is the justice for the crime? I don't really see how intoxication can be considered as an excuse for crime.
  18. The fact that the Supreme Court would unanimously make such a ruling is beyond any rational person's understanding. The ruling leaves the door open to anyone charged with a crime to claim they were very drunk or severely intoxicated by drugs or a combination of both makes a mockery of justice. It leaves the door open to very smooth-speaking lawyers and wavering judges who actually believe the nonsense. It will likely increase the number of not-criminally-responsible findings (NCR) meaning more victims and their relatives will not find justice in our legal system. It creates a large loophole in the system which leaves the government and Parliament in the position of trying to craft a new law to at least partially close the loophole. But since the Supreme Court made this ruling, the pandora's box is opened and judges now will more likely be required to make more rulings of NCR based on intoxication and criminals will get off more often. This is a direct result of our 1982 Charter of Rights and a supreme court system that is packed with judges who almost always now interpret the Charter in a bizarre way that gives extreme rights to the accused or individual at the expense of the victims and society. We saw the Supreme Court take a similar position on the Omar Kadhr case. "The Globe and Mail reports that, "Omar Khadr is not coming home yet – but the Supreme Court of Canada has moved his repatriation considerably closer." CANADA VIOLATED KHADR'S CHARTER RIGHTS "In an 9-0 ruling this morning...." Supreme Court rules Canada violated Omar Khadr's charter rights | The Council of Canadians
  19. Canada’s top court says voluntary extreme intoxication a defence in violent crimes (msn.com) This reprehensible ruling just sent a message to society that if you get drunk enough you can commit serious crime and get away with it. This needs an immediate response from government. Since there is no higher court in the land to appeal to, action must be taken by government to protect innocent Canadians from the consequences of this ruling. I have believed for a long time that rulings from the SCC are sometimes very immoral but this tops them all.
  20. I gave the article explaining it and quoted part of it. It doesn't defy credibility. I accept it on faith exactly the same way I accept the rest of the miraculous events in the Bible including the virgin birth and the resurrection. The Bible is a book about God's miraculous work and power. God is omnipotent. quote 6 Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: 7 But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: 8 Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. 9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man. {judgeth: or, discerneth} {judged: or, discerned} 16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. unquote 1 Corinthians 2:6-16 KJV
  21. We have disagreed all along and will continue to disagree. I just don't agree with the whole idea that a gang of semi trucks, RVs, motorhomes, can go into the middle of a city and block the streets off, forcing businesses to close, and thousands of people party around, set up camping and occuping the streets for weeks on end. The whole thing is anarchy. However, you have a completely different view of the world that doesn't make sense to me. If they did that on your street or shut down your business so you lost thousands of dollars for weeks on end, you might think differently. Most Canadians were repulsed by the occupation because it is repulsive. We will not agree so let's just agree to disagree.
  22. No I think it was illegal. They were illegally honking horns, blocking the streets, harassing people, shutting down businesses. Hundreds of tickets were issued for illegality, and many people were charged for offenses. Some were charged with criminal offenses. Nobody in their right mind would say it was "legal".
  23. I disagree. I think the frozen accounts were only of big donors who were supporting something illegal such as blockading the border or the illegal occupation of downtown Ottawa. Any small donors who had their accounts frozen were likely unfrozen soon after. The government only took this measure of freezing certain accounts because they had to stop the illegal activities that were going on and restore order. Law and order is a government's main function. As for the Rebel News reporters being assaulted or interfered with, I don't agree with that. If the government did not take action to stop anarchists and illegal blockades, occupations, you would have a downfall of government and end up with a dictatorship like in the many other countries. Special interest groups like the so-called Freedom Convoy are anarchists and cannot be allowed to take over this country.
  24. Quote 2. Hebrew scholars of standing have always regarded this to be the case. Thus, Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written: ‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that: (a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience (b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story (c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark. Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’9. unquote Genesis, including creation in six days, is meant to be taken literally. There is nothing to indicate it is an allegory or metaphorical. It is the same as the virgin birth or the resurrection. Those were miraculous or supernatural events as well and are meant to be taken literally. You can't pick and choose which parts of the Bible you will take literally unless there is some clear evidence it is meant to be taken in another way. We have to remember the Bible is a supernatural book and the events recorded in it are supernatural acts of God. This link goes into a fair amount of detail about the subject about taking Genesis literally. The same principle applies to the Flood. Should Genesis be taken literally - creation.com
  25. I have no problem if accounts of criminals blockading the border and illegally occupying Ottawa were frozen. Wish they would give as much attention to the criminals who are committing illegal acts daily in cities in B.C. and being arrested and released right away countless times. One guy smashed a store owner's window with a sledge hammer, was arrested, and sentenced to ONE DAY in prison and a year's probation. Some of them have been arrested dozens and even hundreds of times and never spent any real time in prison. What a farce! The NDP in answer to mayors of cities in B.C.'s concerns, said they appointed someone to study the crime issue for four months. There you have it. The complete uselessness of the BC NDP. I can almost guarantee that the BC NDP will not last past the next election. Unfortunately that is not for several more long years of criminals ruining the life of law-abiding citizens. You can see some of the light sentences given out for assault at this website: Assault (Sentencing Cases) - Criminal Law Notebook (criminalnotebook.ca)
×
×
  • Create New...