CdnFox

Not really. I mean Rome had some of the worlds best infrastructure ever and most of that was built by slaves and with privately raised money. The armies were privately funded as well. I'm not sure where you're seeing this 'great improvement'. Turns out a whip is just as motivating as a pension plan.

Federal lawyers set to explain legal rationale for government use of Emergencies Act https://www.castanet.net/news/Canada/419744/Federal-lawyers-set-to-explain-legal-rationale-for-government-use-of-Emergencies-Act The lawyers plan to spell out reasons the Federal Court should dismiss arguments from several groups and individuals who reject the Liberal government's invocation of the emergency law. Civil liberties and constitutional defence groups have told Justice Richard Mosley this week the government did not meet the legal threshold for resorting to the Emergencies Act. The act allowed for temporary measures including prohibition of public assemblies, the designation of secure places, direction to banks to freeze assets and a ban on support for participants.

(she's got this weird obsession about 15 year old boys.....)

Firstly - you're dodging the issue and it's getting pretty blatantly obvious. Everybody who's sane plays the 'what if' game. Ever bought insurance? You played the what if game. So that's just a cop out. A sane person always looks at how their actions today will affect the future. So what you seem to be saying is you know that if others are allowed to do what justin did it would be bad. What he did was wrong and will set a terrible precedent if it's enshrined in law. How very authoritarian of you Well those that believe in the right to protest certainly disagree, and they'll be putting up a fight to prevent that. There's a lot of people and countries that feel the right to protest is important Really LOL - well ok then. ROFLMAO!!!! So you think he's guilty too This is a discussion board. We were discussing. You sure are afraid to discuss things considering that presumably you come to a discussion board to discuss things Look - no sarcasm or barbs intended, but i get that justin is kind of your guy and you' don't like to see the liberals in a bad light and sure, we can all be a little 'home team' from time to time, But this is actually kind of important. This issue has long term very serious ramifications and cna't just be dismissed lightly as a gaffe or the like. IF this is enshrined in law it will mean serious confrontations and issues down the road and will be a very real erosion of people's rights. This is one of those things were we should be Canadians first and liberals or conservatives second.

not my area of expertise but that does have the ring of truth

Yeah he did. It's right there. And the fact you'd lie about that shows that really you're just here for a fight yourself - the very thing you accuse me of. It's not hard to avoid at all. You seem to seek it out - you weren't even involved in this but you're jumping in and it's not the first time. If you really gave a crap you could easily send a pm and said 'hey, i want to talk about this issue' or whatever but you don't - you just wanted to pick a fight yourself and so you dive in. When someone acts like an ass to me - they get a fight. Plain and simple. This kid was an ass. THere's tonnes of threads where myself and others disagree but it's civil and both sides act with respect, but this douche didn't choose to do that and neither did you. So you've got ZERO room to complain, troll. Awww - so you type with two fingers and are all mad someone else can actually think and type faster than your 12 words an hour. Fack off you degenerate little hobgoblin. You're a leftie troll who's sulking that nobody respects him and you feel the need to lash out. How pathetic.

Yes. As you note - a question. It seeemed likely becuase you CLAIMED FALSELY that no celebs are ever cancelled that you'd done some research and would know about that case, it was in all the papers and was quite a splash at the time. Which is nothing compared to what she had. She was a major star in the Star Wars franchise with parts in a number of their shows and her own spin off. So hundreds of millions of dollars worth of work gone, and she's doing minor movies that didn't even get aired in a theatre - the movie she did for shapiro was never in theatres. Unless you just shoot her in the head you couldn't cancel her more. She's lost a HUGE career. That's' what being cancelled means. It doesn't mean you never ever work again but if you go from being CEO to Janitor - you've had your entire life upended and destroyed by the cancel culture. Actually it was just the leftists. Everyone else was furious that she was fired and how she was fired and people rose up and disney actually started to lose revenues from cancelled memberships and such - people were fed up with disney going woke - and it lead to Kathleen Kennedy being turfed and the entire star wars franchise being 'rebooted' to get rid of that kind o crap. Sorry sweetie - the minority here is you. If you lose your job and are reduced dramatically in the work you can get for the sole reason than the pscho SJW's like yourself demanded it - you've been cancelled. The idea that you must NEVER EARN A DOLLAR again in order to be cancelled is stupid - you're thinking of murder. But these people have had something valuable and important taken away by leftists activists for no other reason than they didn't have the right politics. And that's disgusting and that's what the left is all about - Say what we want, believe what we tell you, or we'll HURT you. WE'll take something away from you and make you as miserable as we can legally (and then some in some cases). That's the left. Terrorize, Hurt, Hate, Attack. It's all you are. The anti facists are facists because they use force and violence to inflict their political agenda and their ideology on others in a facist fashion. You call yourself antifascist to cover up your fascism. Nope. Sorry. And your'e wrong. Look at Gina - she had a thriving career and was at the top of her game doing extremely big productions for massive money and that is GONE. She has lost her carreer. She may rebuild it - we don't know how it will go in the years to come but right now it's gone and she will never get those years back. What she had is gone. So yeah - they lose their careers. they are then forced to try to rebuild a new career or We're not talking about boycotts here. We're talking about cancellation. Boycott is where you say "i won't watch another Gina movie". Cancellation is where you organize a bunch of people and demand disney fire her and cost her her job because you disagree with her So don't try to downplay it. And the right really doesn't do that. That's pretty much a left wing thing to do. It is the act of deliberately trying to do harm to someone and punish them by taking away something valuable and precious to them. You might as well break into their homes and kill their dog. And if it was SO fair and harmless as you suggest - you woudln't be putting so much energy into trying to down play and deflect.

LOL - i'll add that to the tally Nobody said it was good at all. But it is true. It would also be fair to say that ending slavery wasn't for the benefit of the rich. But they don't as we've seen. It didn't really. A shocking amount of the infrastructure was still built over the millennia with private money. We have MORE infrastructure but that's because we've got cars and eletricity and stuff we never did before. But consider even our telecommunications lines - something the gov't never bothered to invest in much. Almost entirely privately built and it's a massive trillion dollar infrastructure system. The only benefit to having taxes collected to pay for things is to those who couldn't have afforded to pay for things. And that's basically the poor and middle class. The rich could afford all of that without 'taxes'. There's no need for taxes to keep the workers alive - the rich can pay them enough for their crust of bread and their hovel directly And so it was for millennia. Now - personally i think what we've got now is better. I much prefer it. Capitalism has raised more people out of poverty than anything else in history and so more people enjoy a higher quality of life and that, imho, is good. But then again - i'm middle class, not rich. I benefit

Yes and no. Remember - the act was not used to deal with the protesters directly. Everything that happened there did not require the act. which is one of the reasons people are pissed about it being invoked. So the protesters wouldn't be able to claim any 'damages'. And for the people who got their accounts seized, the banks released most of that even before the gov't cancelled the emergency realizing the gov't was overstepping - SOME people may be able to claim damages against the gov't but by and large they didn't lose any money. So in this case there wouldn't be much to sue for .

the issue of what would happen if someone similar to trump got into power and it had been legally established that calling the emergency act during a protest was an acceptable thing to do. You know -that thing you dodged by saying you don't want to "compare" things :). That was the whole point. The judge will have to decide if he wants to normalize this kind of thing and enshrine it in law that it's acceptable, and the advocacy groups are petrified of that. So i asked you to consider what might happen if someone with the morals and manners of trump got ahold of the right to freeze or seize assets, suspend liberties and rights, and take similar actions against people simply for protesting. THat's why this is still an important issue after all.

I don't know if you recall, but when our current terrorism laws were being crafted many protest groups freaked out because they were worried they'd fit the definition. If you take terrorism by it's dictionary definition some of their activites such as damaging infrastructure or starting fires etc to force political change would qualify. So the laws were nerfed to prevent that, and it does make it hard to prove someone fits into the more specific and narrow definition in our current laws.

Pervert. That's racist.

You're suggesting we hold the gov't LESS accountable?

Your religion IS a fraud. It's primary purpose is to scare people out of their money by threatening them with a boogie man if they don't do what you say.

Utterly irrelevant. As you'd know if you had half a brain. And i'd obviously have better luck teaching a labradoodle calculus than explaining why that's true to you.

Nobody asked what you were. We already knew what you were just fine. You're the village dolt. Kid you showed up and made an ass of yourself claiming I said things i didn't and making a bunch of ridiculous statements which have proven wrong, did you really think you were going to be taken seriously, Maybe go to bed and try to do better tomorrow.

It just seems that way because you're too dumb for this, You literally gave me shit for saying something i never said. Too dumb. First off many have. Second off, many didn't need to because they already moved their money so it doesn't matter. They could do so easily. And that's the way it's always been. In fact many rich people already pay for their own roads airports and sanitation within their communities. Police too. Far far far less than they consume. For example - 61 percent of income taxes in canada are paid by 20 percent of the population, Yet that 20 percent won't use 60 percent of the resources - so if there were only wealthy people they could cut their 'taxes' by 2/3 and still get the level of services they're getting today. That's to buy votes from poor people. They're not bribing the rich going into deficit. Sure they can - have for thosuands of years. The working class is new. We can go back to serfs and the like very easily. So? Go fetch me a beer boy If your point is you're a retard i see it just fine. I already addressed the issue that poor people would be very poor previously You're not saying anything new. You just don't know how to read Do you have any idea how many centuries went by before that happened? And they just made the mistake of not having a larger army History shows your argument is a complete joke. For almost all of history it has been the rich and the poor - with the poor having no say and the rich living the good life with no taxes. As noted - it was used by fools who didn't understand it as a joke attempt to discredit it, not as an actual economic theory. Which i said. Soooo - where was i wrong? Oh yeah - i wasn't. You're a retard. Yeah - pretty much none of that is accurate. But what's really funny is that you couldn't even successfully comprehend what i wrote before you got here and now you'd have us believe you can understand economics

Not 'somebody' - retards. He starts off by claiming statements i never made in an insulting fashion and then you crybaby that people are short with him. You. Are. Toooo. Dumb. for. this. as. well. What kind of dolt complains about people fighting by jumping in and picking a fight in a discussion he's not even part of. Now if you're done acting like an unusually retarded dung beetle, you can go back to your comic books.

still haven't addressed it tho. So dodging

To express the kind of person you're talking about whithout having to write a long dialoge. If i say "the mariners need a player tha hits like babe ruth", i'm not asking you to compare and contrast anything. I'm saying - babe ruth has certain characteristics and they need someone who also has those characteristics. So when i say that it can be abused by someone like donald trump - there's nobody to compare to. I'm saying trump has a set of characteristics and imagine this law in the hands of someone who ALSO has these characteristics. Seriously - there was only one person in that discussion, so who were you going to 'compare' it to. It really does feel like you're dodging. My comment was pretty obviously not a 'compare' comment, it was a simple statement that you could imagine the possible abuses someone LIKE donald trump could do.

Yep - It doesn't exactly pass the sniff test

I heard it was because some dude named 'archie duke" got hungry and shot an ostrich. ... (or maybe the archduke of austria-hungary got shot, one of the two).

No - dude this is a legal challenge inside a legal court with a legal judge presiding over the court case. This is going to be a legal judgement period, So - anything he does is ok because leaders have all been criticized one time or another? How does that make sense? Yes - someone LIKE him. Not him, Who asked you to? Nobody said you should compare anyone to anyone else. I said imagine that someone LIKE donald trump had those powers. Imagine how they might be misused. No comparison required. Sounds like you're just dodging the issue.

Nope, but i can see why you'd believe that. After all, apparently you believe anything that sounds good to you.

Of course it is. Proven in the field, replicated in the lab. Absolutely cast iron real. It boggles my mind you can pretend something that is proven using the scientific method is NOT true and yet believe something with ZERO evidence like your imaginary friend or the roman equivalent of 'harry potter' is absolutely guaranteed 100 percent real. Oh well.