Venandi

Thanks... Now that I have the benefit of your wisdom and greater appreciation of my own weakness, how could I not?

OK, I got curious because I just couldn't imagine that it wasn't already happening. Now cast your mind back, remember when concerns about the expansion of MAID were being ridiculed? How about the idea that every jurisdiction that demanded mandatory registration of firearms proceeded forthwith to confiscation. Remember when Herb was mumbling about registering your car, your dog, and how confiscation was a conspiracy theory? This is that and there is more of it in your future: JURISDICTION FORMAL RECOGNITION TYPE OF CASES LEGAL RESTRICTIONS United Kingdom Yes Marital, family law Requires consent of both parties Canada Initially, then banned Marital, family law Banned Sharia arbitration in 2005 United States Informal Personal disputes Varies by state; many have restrictions Australia Yes Family matters Must comply with national law

What you don't realize yet is how that will change as demographic concentrations rise to a level of jurisdictional (majority) political power. Islam didn't (and doesn't) change with location or because you're open and welcoming... it's biding its time, awaiting favourable conditions. Sharia law will soon be accepted as a voluntary dispute resolution process, I'm willing to bet that's already ongoing in some places but it's so obvious to me that I don't even care enough to research it for you. In Islamic circles, "voluntary" has a different definition than yours. Over time, this will rise to a point that it affects you, or at least to a point where you begin to find it intrusive... you probably won't like it and you'll probably vote to walk back the intrusion. The result of that will be exactly what those of us who urged caution were hoping to avoid back when the Herbs of the world were hurling insults at us. I was just trying to think of a single thing that progressives got right over the last 10+ years... and I got nothing.

Proof that NETFLIX has a corrosive effect on elderly brains, this is from the very demographic most likely to support the gun grab: Geriatric curlers are a force to be reckoned with

My goodness...I find it all "stunning " too. And the most stunning part is how perfectly predictable outcomes "stun" people. Is it part of the human condition, simply the failure to anticipate likely outcomes or is it the result of a lack of exposure to other cultures, countries and religions in the wild? Have y'all noticed that sometimes it gets really dark at night? Seriously now, please take a moment and explain to me how you thought this wouldn't happen in lockstep with increasing demographic concentrations. On a personal note, I'm an early riser, I've spent a fair amount of time "over there," and I love the coolness and smell of the desert in the morning when everything is still. For me, the morning call to prayers is an old and welcome jogging companion. Enjoy...

I think inattentive, narrative driven, ill informed and opinionated is more likely. If a MAGA CHUD had typed the post (directly above mine) about Palestinians, the resident Herbs would be hatching out multi-coloured kittens on the kitchen floor right now.

Luckily, in the final analysis your hormonal emotions will be rendered moot... the law and a logical assessment of the evidence will prevail. In the meantime, Ibuprofen is often recommended for the relief of dysmenorrhea. Like it or not it will all boil down to about 4 seconds of video. Dispassionate people steeped in such events will look at things like the perceived threat and likely base their assessment on "stuff" like: - rear wheel rotation prior to the draw; - front wheel deflection at the time of draw - the point at which the agent at the driver side door disengaged from the vehicle; - time between the draw and the first shot; - front wheel deflection at the first shot; and - position of the firing agent throughout the event and whether or not the vehicle actually made contact with the firing agent. A condensed list for easy consumption maybe but long discourses about Nazis wearing coloured shirts will be deemed just as irrelevant to the inquiry as it is to sensible people here.

Good thing eh?

Two sides of an interesting coin, both from like minded posters who have effectively derailed their own train of logic. ICE is still performing "duties as assigned" only the watch commander has changed. In the previous administration those duties were waving and smiling at a stream of illegals as they flooded across the border. Now, after your own madness created the demand for a new set of "duties," it's your turn to dislike it as much as the majority of your voting peers clearly did. Long before now and as a minimum response, I would have mandated face coverings, ZAP numbers, NG cordon support, drone and ground based FMV, and a QRF equipped with water cannons (and heavily dyed water).

Since I don't know wtf you're talking about and suspect you don't either, you should pursue your train of logical absurdity on the tracks of a new thread. I've got nothing else for you....

A final thought and it's simply because the military releases bug me... it ended more careers than you probably think, the official numbers are actually disciplinary releases (and artificially low) because they don't include voluntary ones undertaken to avoid a disciplinary outcome. If you want to pursue this further start a new thread. Pretty stark choices and it illustrates the sort of heavy handed abuse of power “you people” have been repeatedly warned about. I think it was a bad precedent to set and casually dismissing coercion as being a “choice” virtually ensures that it will spawn other coercive choices that will be applied to things you don’t like in the future. Self deport or we’ll deport you by force" is a choice too… and it’s built on the foundation of your own logic. That ass must be creeping down your leg and dragging on the floor by now. Since you weren’t paying attention during that covid thingy it might surprise you to know I refer to exposure via vaccinated sick people… the ones who loudly asserted the vaccine prevented transmission and later pretended they knew all along that it wouldn’t. Cool, at least you’ll have something to talk about at dinner; I’m sure she’ll find you just as charming as we do. Wear old clothes though, the red wine she’s drinking will leave a stain. POOF… progress at last. Violent coercion is a close cousin to the administrative coercion you already defend. Both provide undeniable short term gains for those holding the power to wield it. After the fact considerations always make it a function of legality, the validity of the agenda itself and it invariably sets precedents we will all live with later. Both are techniques of compliance and both are deliberately applied in support of a selected agenda whether that be handcuffing a bad guy or compelling vaccination. It’s also worth noting that both are directed at an unwilling participant… an important consideration for establishing those future precedents. Left unchecked, the intensity and intrusiveness of both versions will incrementally increase over time… and it starts with condoning a single step in that direction. Turns out we have an entire thread and a lot of debate on choices resulting from precedent. And here's the rub, if memory serves you don’t like how parallel (but opposite) choices are already playing out in Mn right now… more stark choices are likely coming there. So... if you’re content to let the see-saw of political polarization decide such things in a “choice of the day” manner when you happen to be in charge, be assured that you won’t like the new choices on offer when your not.

an experamental vaccine they were coerced into taking to save their job. Actually, the real money would be in compensating people exposed to diseased vaccinated co-workers. Sometimes pain compliance techniques don't work on the mentally ill.

Not my part ship (as they say) but since there are some AI fans here, this is what the bot thinks about farming vs the automobile sector: SECTOR CONTRIBUTION TO GDP EMPLOYMENT (% OF TOTAL) KEY HIGHLIGHTS Farming 1.6% to 1.8% 1% Major employer in agri-food sectors. Automotive ~6.3% Industry Directly: 0.6% Contributes ~$19.2 billion in GDP. Mining 5.2% to 7.8% ~1% Supports ~694,000 jobs directly and indirectly. Fisheries ~2% ~90,000 jobs Over $9 billion contribution to GDP.

Clearly a US story but might be of interest to Canadians in general and particularly Canadian veterans. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/navy-under-secretary-hung-cao-says-personnel-discharged-over-vaccine-mandate-were-failed IMO it should be more substantial than just an apology and it appears it might be headed in that direction. In any case, it should serve as a real deterrent to this sort of thing happening again the next time people scare themselves, stampede, and feel entitled to trample everything in their path. I remember (and won't soon forget) members of that thundering herd opining that those released under the mandate should be forced to forfeit their pension (if entitled to one on release). Remember those days? Excellent gym motivation for me just thinking about it... usually I consciously try not to. So.... I'd say that those wishing to return to service should be re-enrolled (if they chose and are medically fit) with full backpay and credit for the service time that was stolen. Same deal for those who opted for voluntary release in order to avoid the lasting stigma of a disciplinary one. That payout should be tax free... call it a recruiting bonus. There's an additional bonus too, If this doesn't hurt them financially and embarrass them personally, the eyeholes and Herbs of the world will do it again the very next they frighten themselves.

More than fights between drunks, there are some obvious (at least to me) legal questions here that went unasked and unanswered in the article. Deliberately carrying a knife, a can of soup in a plastic bag, or a bottle from the bar as a defensive "weapon" is illegal in Canada in and of itself and it's based on intent. In short, it's a weapon if you use it as a weapon. There needs to be a "story" attached to the possession of it. The soup was my lunch. The knife was in my pocket because i was doing carpentry work an hour ago. My girlfriend collects micro brewery bottles. The details (as a function of law) are important.... they seem to be missing in the article and as always, I wonder why the press never asks the questions reasonable people would ask if they were in a position to ask reasonable questions. It's part of a slow legal and policing failure... assuming you subscribe to the existing laws as written because you can't have it both ways. Create a situation (systemically) where people feel the legitimate need to carry defensive weapons and people will carry defensive weapons because they have to... and precedent will support the legitimacy of them doing so over time. Sounds like we're making a choice here, and if so, believe me when I say that I'm all for having the legal right to carry a defensive weapon.That's not a common sentiment IMO but it seems like that's where we're going. It's a choice, and precedent is part of what legally validates those choices over time. Like it or not (and IMO of course) we're making choices here.

Fair enough but I would suggest that the absence of enforced rules of behaviour, which you rightly refer to as "moderated" is actually the true test of one's innate nature... and for that matter, that of any group of like minded individuals. Alcohol and anonymity change everything, filters go into full bypass and true personalities come to the fore. Even now, after an entire career of exposure, I still stand disappointed, saddened, but not surprised. Sad eh? I retired with a pension... and the uncomfortable feeling that my efforts (limited as they clearly were) accomplished nothing. I think you're absolutely right in suggesting that "it is what it is." My disappointment lies in thinking the sentiment was, at minimum, malleable. Somehow it seems more stark now...

I suppose we could argue constitutional and immigration law and the duty of any serving President (of any stripe) to enforce it as a matter of federal law and jurisdiction... but it would likely be a long, and ultimately unproductive exchange. The short answer to your question, and putting aside my disagreement with the way you framed it is... yes. I did think it would happen, in fact I thought it was an inevitable dive into the same sort of madness that the previous madness precipitated. A sad comment on human nature perhaps but it's the way of the world. Taken a step further, I think it will soon happen in some European countries too. IMO, the whole thing is unfortunate but predictable. My concern from the start was the inevitable backlash, I think it could easily have been avoided and the missing ingredient is compassion... you must have considered the backlash a possibility or even a likelihood; or did you? At the risk of repeating myself, I do think the same thing will happen in the European theatre at some point and that it will happen for the same reason... it's simply my own view of consequences, immigration done poorly, and cynical view of human nature in general.

They weren't immigrants, they were guests, stranded travellers and new friends. The folks who stayed with us didn't call us "misanthropes"... Alcohol and anonymity always tend to lower inhibitions and bring out a person's true nature. Maybe what you're seeing here is a product of your own combination of name calling and personal conduct on an anonymous forum.

As an aside, and since I mentioned it above, here's some context on the monkey dance I noticed it mentions Rory Miller in the text and his book "Meditations on violence." If you're a martial artist, soldier, COP or anyone involved in the management of violence I recommend it as mandatory reading. He doesn't pretend to be an eloquent author but he's welll worth listening to. I've probably read his book 4 times I only added this post for the benefit of progressive types who might otherwise assume that this was the monkey dance

There's some wisdom in that I think, it's exactly how you got to where you are today and now you don't like it. The worst part of all this was the predictability, the fact that you were repeatedly warned about the destination, warned that a backlash was inevitable and warned that when it occurred.... you wouldn't like it. POOF, here we are. IMO, the same thing is coming to some European countries in the near future, not quite there yet but it's coming. So, when I ask "what did you think was going to happen" it isn't rhetorical and it's not the result of being opposed to immigration.... it's purely about being opposed to bat shi% craziness. Speaking personally now, why do you suppose that I (and any number of ex liberal voters) were fundamentally opposed to bat shi$ crazy immigration abuses in the US? It's because your actions were predictable; It's because we could see where those actions would take us and we didn't want to travel to Crazy Island with you; It's because the end result (in terms of growing opposition and animosity) was predictable; It's because the backlash that animosity created was predictable; and especially It's because that backlash (not if but when it came) would hurt a lot of people. But take heart.. that confusion can only linger in the continued presence of bat shi% craziness. Extremes always result in equal and opposite extremes and the law of the see-saw always raises the (bat shi%) bar incrementally in equal and opposite measure. Put on a blue hat and go see the word, circumstances are always different but the principle remains. On a smaller scale, watch the escalation dynamic in the parking lot after closing time. Watch how it turns into something affectionately labeled "the monkey dance." Maybe it's part of the human condition... I don't know the answer but It always comes with consequences and it always begs the same question. WTF did you think was going to happen? The better question, the one you should have asked yourself at the get go is "do you really want what you seem to be asking for?"

WTF is wrong with you?

I didn't say 15% was a large majority. Here's what I said: "If memory serves it was running at about 18%" That was the only poll I remember trying to chase down and it was because I was surprised (appalled is a better word) that people would even consider such a thing. Yes, I thought it was 18% and it turned out to be 15.... take that huge win and insert it sideways. Even though you seem willing to take 15% in stride, I find it disconcerting, and that's simply a function of what people are willing to do if you scare them. Scaring the public isn't that hard either, it's an I/O technique. The funniest example of that I know of is the NS wolf hoax. Look at some of the other stats in that news paper article posted... I cringe reading them. And just like residential schools, eugenics and Japanese internment, those who make up those statistical demographics no longer admit it. In fact, they deny the ever advocated for such a thing. And that's only because they aren't scared anymore.

If you want to pursue this further start a new thread... being as I've drifted it off topic more than intended I'll simply close with this; It's not just commissioned officers (even though I used them as an example). It's Forces wide and most of the topics I refer to have absolutely nothing to do with national security. They're policy related... (stuff like recruiting priorities, DEI promotions etc). Classified material is a given and it rises to the level of criminality under the Official Secrets Act. Entirely different kettle of fish and you know it... don't snow the Snow Queen. You seem to be throwing your hands in the air and saying how is it possible to muzzle an entire professional group. It's not that hard when you have professional bodies with disciplinary powers or rely on The King's Regulations and Orders to do it. I offered up the entire bloody Canadian Forces as an example of muzzling yet you choose to dispute it with a weak sister argument about the national security bogyman. So.... cast your mind back to a time when you insisted that it absolutely was possible. Remember back in the Harper days when "you people" (as you're fond of saying) accused him of muzzling all government scientists? Remember the screams of indignation, bullying tactics and tyranny? Then POOF, all of a sudden it isn't possible anymore Lot's of case studies out there, some are pretty high profile, and all of them have a chilling effect on professionals speaking out... assuming you take a moment and chose to look. If nothing else, muzzling 68,000 military members by threatening them with career action should stand as proof of concept. There's a nurse that was fired for suggesting that (medically speaking), there are only two genders who comes instantly to mind as well because I just read a piece about her a couple of days ago... and no I'm not going to post that link for you BECAUSE: As an aside and right on cue, here's a case (in the news today) where firings based on professional conduct may well be warranted... bet nothing comes of it even though sending those seeking emergency treatment "elsewhere" is potentially far more dangerous than (gasp) Ivermectin. Which BTW is one of the cheapest, most readily available, and innocuous prescription drugs available: "[Hospital staff] were nasty to the officers in the waiting room, accused them of being ICE and suggested they go elsewhere," https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-detectives-mistaken-ice-treated-rudely-hospital-staff-scuffle-suspect

I tried but couldn't mange to merge all of the numbers into that chart. At some point, you're going to have to start doing your own homework and defending your thesis with something other than insults and sarcasm.

No, I mean there are lots of military officers with professional opinions (backed by hands on experience) that run contrary to stated government positions... they are equally restricted in making those opinions public. No magic in it at all... there are about 7000 commissioned officers affected. The ones actually speaking out are either retired or looking to drop a torpedo on their career and livelihood; might be the same with doctors, but that's just me guessing.