GroundskeeperWillie

I did not ask you for a lesson in jurisprudence. Should people take responsibility for their own actions, yes or no. That would not be incitement. I am starting to think you don't know what incitement is. If I told my boyfriend someone at work was bothering me, and I said, you'd better do something about it and go to my work place to do it now, otherwise I will lose my job. So he went and murdered that coworker. Have I incited him? Maybe all I wanted him to do was to confront that coworker and give her a good scolding. I didn't tell my boyfriend to kill her. But under your incitement laws, somehow I am responsible for the murder even though I never told anybody to murder the coworker. The problem I have with incitement is that it's too loosely defined. Its application and interpretation are entirely subjective. It can be used to cover a lot of activities and has potential to be abused by legal authorities.

So, if I told you that a massive crime was in progress. That your country was being stolen and that you had to fight and take action now. And I told you where to stop it. And I told you when you needed to stop it. And would you go and storm the capitol? No, I am sure you wouldn't. And why is that? That's right, it's because you have agency. And you can and do decide not to listen to me. The same thing applies to the protestors. They are adults who have agency, so they should be the only ones responsible for the attack, not Trump. By the way, you didn't define incitement. So I am still waiting on this one.

So under what circumstances is incitement a crime? And further, how do you define incitement? Quote me the exact words from Trump himself that you think made him responsible for the attack. And no, don't quote me statements or charges from a court. I want to hear from you. I don't know what Trump said exactly, but if he merely said, "you need to do something about the stolen election or your country will be gone forever", that is NOT incitement.

No sir, you need to learn to read. I didn't say people weren't sent to jail. I also didn't say people weren't being held accountable. Rather, I said, Trump should not be held responsible for other people's actions. I know that reading is hard, but with enough practice, you might get to the level of a 3rd grader.

Well, I know that incitement is a crime, but I really think that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. They can't just say, "Trump made us storm the capitol". In a similar vein, the courts should punish the actual actors who committed a crime, they shouldn't blame it on someone else for inciting them, because, like I said, people are adults, they should take responsibility for their own actions. If I told my boyfriend that someone at work had been bothering me, and that he should do something about it or I would lose my job, and he then went and murdered that coworker, this is entirely his fault. I did not incite him to murder that person. I did not abet him to do anything. He needed to take responsibility for what he did. I did not commit any crime at all.

If your father did something wrong, and people want to punish you for it, how would you feel?

Your "rectification" means current white males, who did not discriminate against anybody, are discriminated against. You seem to think contemporary white males are the same as white males from the past. You are punishing living white males for what white males of prior generations did.

Stop trying to make it about me. I never said anything about accident of chance or systemic anything. I am asking you to prove that when a minority or a woman is passed up, it must be due to discrimination. This is the claim you made, so you need to back it up. Maybe many years ago, there was systemic racism. But in today's world, I'd say there is little to none, at least officially. If you want to allege racism or discriminatory hiring practice, which is today's political climate is a very serious accusation, you better be prepared to corroborate it. You can't just point to something like, "oh, a white guy is hired even though there were minority applicants" and claim that discrimination has happened.

"If I am not too lazy"? Why do you talk to me like that?

Ok, so if you are so sure that Trump incited them, then post proof. Post actual quotes from Trump that indicate incitement.

Then you need to prove that the reason they were passed over was because of discrimination, not because of their lack of qualifications or competence. I don't doubt that historically white males tended to land jobs, however this fact alone does not prove that there was favoritism. It could just be that white males tended to be the most competent. This is not their fault, and it's not the employers' fault, either.

But if the good people all leave for other countries, there will be no one left in Canada to fight the evil forces.

You mentioning Trump has no meaning, because I am not a Trump-supporter. Do you support Biden? I am assuming you do based on the things you say. So the second question is, why do you support someone who has shown with his action that he has no integrity?

It doesn't matter whether Biden quit his campaign or not. The fact is that he plagiarized in the first place. That is a form of cheating and someone who cheated like that has no business being POTUS. He has shown with his action that he has no integrity.

I don't understand why Trump invoked presidential immunity. He didn't need to do that. I believe he only needed to prove that he didn't incite the crowd or tell them to storm the capitol. Those protestors did what they did because they wanted to, not because they had been incited by Trump. Courts and judges should go after these protestors if they believe they committed crimes. They shouldn't go after Trump. Trump shouldn't be punished for the things other people did, doesn't matter that those people did it because of him.

I think it depends on two factors: whether you enjoy working and are willing to work longer, and your health. It's like someone said, if you have many long-lived relatives, you can probably expect to live long, too, so you should factor that in. Personally I'd choose to retire at 65.

That does sound bad. How did she manage to get elected though, if she didn't speak English.

You need to stop making up lies about me and making it look like I said something I didn't.

Various health authorities around the world. I didn't say conspire, however yes, they did use dirty tricks. And no, I won't prove anything because saying that someone used "dirty tricks" is subjective and hence cannot be proven either way. Either you agree with me or you don't. And before you demand me prove anything, how about you prove this " We still had to do something and given how high the death toll would've been without vaccine I think we did the right thing using it." Sounds like pure speculation on you part. Anyway, the burden is on you to prove it.

And I suppose we all think we are conversing with an adult when you talk like this: "Wah wah Trudeau blah blah. Why don't we just refuse all refugees until it's convenient for us blah blah dream on that there's some magical solution."

So you are saying it's fine for some people to be ill from vaccines as long as there aren't too many of them.

No, Zeitgeist, don't say that. Don't lose heart and keep fighting. We shouldn't let bad people win.

And why is that?

You think you have a position? LMAO. All you did was violently and rabidly denouncing a newspaper. But of course, to you that is a "position". Haha.

No. You have provided what you thought was conclusive evidence. But it is contested. How about you stop being glib and actually address other people's arguments?