jefferiah

And given that Christian t-shirts are not only a fire hazard, but also contain asbestos, the safety of that environment would be compromized severely.

People's shirts distract you? You must have a tough life. Those poor schoolchildren must have trouble sleeping at night after the traumatic experience of being exposed to this horrible distracting t-shirt.

People can use guns to shoot at targets. Guns can be used for hunting. And if used in self defense, guns are a tool for living. Carrying a gun with you might be extreme, but having them in your household is no big deal. Where I live everyone owns guns. Everyone. Growing up we had several in the house. People never locked them. They hung on the wall. Ammo was kept in the bottom drawer or something like that. I haven't been shot yet. Guns don't jump into peoples hands if they are not locked up. Ammo doesn't jump inside the gun if it isn't hidden away. Guns don't make people criminals. People have focused on guns and demonized them. It is a societal phobia driven by fearmongering.

I bet you can't sleep at night thinking about it.

What difference does it make if it's a gun or any other instrument which could be used to cause harm? People have developed a mass phobia toward an inanimate object.

The Office, before Michael Scott left.

deleted

Yes, they do. I know that charities and political parties do not have to comply with the national do-not-call list. But they are required to keep their own internal do-not-call lists. They just never tell you this. If you ask to be removed from their list, they are required to remove you. (In the sense that people being asked to be removed from your list are effectively asking to be added to your internal do-not-call.) "3. Establish and maintain a private do not call list: While charities are exempt organizations for the purpose of the national list, the Act requires that they maintain private do not call lists. In particular, Canadians are entitled to call specific charities and require the charity to add the caller to the charity’s own do not call list. The charity must maintain and comply with its list or is subject to investigation and penalties under the act." http://www.canadiancharitylaw.ca/index.php/blog/comments/charities_and_the_do_not_call_list_yes_charities_must_register_who_telemark/ "Organizations who are making telemarketing calls that are exempt from the National DNCL Rules must: maintain an internal do not call list and respect your specific request not to be called; tell you the purpose of the telemarketing call at the beginning of the call; and, identify on whose behalf the call is being made." https://www.lnnte-dncl.gc.ca/nrt-ntr-eng

You don't, of course. My mistake, though, I thought the poster I was responding to was referring to political calls in general. After re-reading the post and ones he was responding to, I see I was probably wrong in that. In any case, for those who do not know, it is handy info to have. Raises a pretty good question, though. If charities and political parties are required to keep their own do-not-call lists, you would wonder why robocalls are even allowed since they do not allow for people to even request to removed from their call list.

Never hang up on a political party. Charities and political parties do not have to comply with the national do-not-call list. It is expensive to keep up to date with the do-not-call list, and therefore not realistic for non-profit calls. They are, however, required to keep their own internal lists. The catch is they are not required to tell you about it. But if you know, simply ask the caller to put you on their do-not-call list.

They do not gather info so well that they could manage to identify non-supporters. Also, I think the Elections Canada bit is most likely a mistake by the accusers.

I have done political calling before. Telemarketing firms gather info based on previous surveys or solicitations. But the information is often wrong. It happens quite often that the person being called is grouped into the wrong riding. Simple as that. It's a matter of having the wrong address on file.

Telemarketing firms which do political polling have terrible info in their databases. They can hardly identify their own supporters accurately, let alone another party's. They have wrong names to match phone numbers, sometimes of tenants who lived at the address like 10 years ago. They get ridings wrong all the time. My guess is that people being directed to the wrong polling stations were actually due to mistakes in the system. Doubly so, because their MO is to contact conservative supporters. It would make little sense for them to attempt something like this, because in all likelihood they would be misdirecting just as many Conservative voters.

I just got that. Good one!

I look at all these people sitting there and the choir, and I keep thinking that at this point, at least a couple of them must have to go pretty badly.

What happens when someone has to pee at a celebrity's funeral?

Right, because Canada and the US practice dhimmitude with immigrants.

Not just for pie's sake. Cheese + apples is a palatable flavor combo with some folks.

Pumpkin pie! Am I the only one who likes pumpkin pie??

He is talking about the UN, not our democracy in Canada.

How do you know these are newly registered members? What do you base this on? There are a fair number of conservative leaning posters here, and 20 votes is not really all that much. For better or worse, it would seem that most people on either "side" have decided to cast their votes for fairly recent PMs. So you have a race between Trudeau and Harper.

I am not asking if it is against the law, I am asking you if you agree with it. And what difference does it make how much someone has been targetted in the past. Crimes are crimes against anyone. If it is wrong to promote hate against one group which could lead to violent acts, then it ought to be wrong to do it to all. If I were able to locate an "identifiable minority" in Canada for which there are no recorded incidents of "hate" against them, would it be reasonable to suggest that such a group should not be protected? If saying "hateful" things about a certain group can possibly influence someone to commit violent acts against that group, then why should history matter. The same possibility for violence against a human being (or human beings) exists. If you hold someone liable for his words causing reckless endangerment to others, why would you not do this all across the board. How is it less of a crime if it happens to someone who is not a "visible" minority?

Try to stay on topic, I was asking you to define hateful.

I don't think I said anything that resembled "people being put in prison's for the rest of their life". When parents "punish" their children they do not put them in prison for life. People have their speech censored however, and they do face financial ramifications that make speech rather costly. That's a dangerous road to go down. Who gets to decide what websites are hateful and which ones get to be taken down? How about one's which say "hateful" things about Conservatives? Can we do that? If we just take the Website down and don't put them in prison for life is that ok?

How about what do you mean? As I have shown, you are certainly open to punishing people based on speech that does not directly recommend violence or does not constitute marching up and down the square. Just to some lesser degree. So you define legally punishable hatred for me? If a certain person's signature referred to an "identifiable minority" rather than people with certain political leanings, would you defend that person if he faced fines from the CHRC?