Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

shortlived's Achievements


Proficient (10/14)

  • First Post
  • Collaborator
  • Posting Machine Rare
  • Conversation Starter
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. guess they wern't getting fair market value or the company didn't take into consideration legal cost of working for the conservatives in a support role. The best defence againt court is being sued. Keep on an eye on what happens to the people in the company. If it is a story of punishment for failure or hidden reward. Robocalls were not new, none the less the ones from the US should have violated the election act, and they also should not be cold calling, the fact political parties arn't considered spammers is utter partisan BS.
  2. This isn't true, Israel has offshore oil reserves shared with Turkey as well as oil in the south of Israel. http://geology.com/usgs/oil-shale/images/israel-jordan-oil-shale-map.gif Now contrast that with http://www.honestreporting.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/regionMap.jpg
  3. You have the choice not to pay your taxes. I would agree the welfare state is poorly managed, bloated and not geared toward productivity. At the same time what do you expect people deemed seriously disabled and unable to carry out daily living tasks let alone work in a regular job. Youthenizing the retards isn't a solution most modern democracies would advocate, and most g7 countries probably wouldn't let their vegetables die on the side of the road either. You arn't offering a solution to the problem. I am someone who advocates for medicare reform, this includes providing health care through self funding national insurance program, and removed completely from the general revenue fund. It is a provincial issue though so the provinces would have to agree to take middle income people and the wealthy off of regular medicare. Just not providing health care is a community health risk though, and poor people who could have been employable will become unemployable due to illness. Its not all straight edge but providing basic health care dental and eye care to people in employment training for in demand jobs apprentice ships and the like is something that is beneficial. We do need to crack down on people that have been immobilized and disabled on a corruptly and inefficient system though however we must recognize that we must change our analysis of the seriously disabled if merited, or accept that the people deemed medically incapable should be provided for by society because the alternative is really beneath a society that is supposedly welahty. The morality and ethics are not what a good society should hold in not caring for those who cannot care for themselves. If that was the case, I say we kill the greedy and selfish people first. Tax reform, health reform, and welfare reform, along side justice reform, and electoral reform are all major policy prongs I support.
  4. They were in a park not the streets. I'm not an activist. None the less I communicate my issues direct with the people responsible for them. I'm not about public relations. I have no interest in being a sociopath or creating a following. If I feel something is issued I go to the government and voice my concerns. If it is important enough I'd resolve it myself. It would get bloody very quickly I have no interest in ending peoples lives, especially cops. However if it was arranged and there was no other avenue, yes I would raise awareness. Nothing is so clear and present a danger, that calls on me to raise that awareness beyond my relatively passive means of communicating concerns with the stakeholders causing the problems. It is unfortunate at the federal level that the conservative party has implemented an "aide wall" that vets communications completely from ministers and mp's, unlike the previous liberal governments. The government has increasingly created total public censorship and access to representatives and government, it is a massive failure for the public due to this governments completely detached governance, although not total is is greatly increased from previous governments, and response times are much longer. Are you aware of a clear and present danger requiring public notice? If there is one do you really want people dressed as cops to be able to shut you up? Do be aware people can impersonate other professions, as a social engineering task, which could be used by terrorists, or other people who could be advantaged from a false flag operation. Being able to indiscriminately lock people up trying to whistle blow is a grave public security threat. None the less both violation of the charter, and environmental despoliation contrary to first nations constitutional law are serious errors that have detracted from Canada that have came into law against the public interest. If it is important enough I will bring it to a lethal level if that amount of force is required to protect life and so on. Would i kill if something was so vital to my conscience that failure for me to do so would result in other innocent peoples deaths, yes. Would I kill cops or the military under so same grounds, yes, as long as I had full disclosure and the public was put in imminent and clear lethal jeopardy, and the police and military were acting unconstitutionally. I would not recognize them as lawful agents of state but rather human rights abusers and I would not feel issued in resolving the crisis. Protest is a non lethal passive method of raising alarms. I think many people have abused the process for selfish reasons, but in the case of environmental ignorance in regard to fresh water pollution, and police state enforcement methods outlawing freedom of assembly and expression, these are very grave issues for a free society, very very, the very free world is being attacked by these methods, and perhaps that is just what the communists want to take down the free world by provoking the government to clamp down so that our freedoms are removed. However I'd ask you stay on topic and not turn this into another about shortlived topic, it is about the issue not about me. I contacted the city of montreal, and Jean Charest last year about this issue. They already know my opinion. However last year the police wern't enforcing it during the student protests, which was a point I mentioned to Jean Charest about the fact his law isn't being enforced by the SQ... however now the Bloc government is in with anti anglophone laws and they are outlawing protest in montreal. The issues are expansive and go well beyond the communists not wanting their right of protest removed.
  5. Some businesses rape money from poor people who work day in and day out for no gains in 200% markup on goods so that people sitting at desk jobs day in and day out pushing paper get to live better than the people buying the products they need to survive. Those same companies privatize and monopolize on resources that those poor people mutually have ownership in as citizens, meanwhile the dick and janes that supress the people pay for militants to beat up anyone who steps out of line. Some people pay way more taxes just based on how little they get paid for their hard work with little or no economic incentives but its the life they have. Why don't you just shut up about class warfare in a thread about first nations. All it amounts to is utter ignorance of the fact you live on native land taken from the natives so you get those fat paychecks. None the less, whining really doesn't belong here. That person getting the tax break deserves the money just for putting up with people like you, ungrateful, and non recognizing of the non monetary contributions people add to society. The world isn't about money it is about people hopefully you'll clue in. Either give the people training and employment or shut up about the fact they don't have a job with a fair wage. You offer nothing constructive by whining about the fact you need to pay for the people you are raping for your money.
  6. Blah blah blah. I'm not arguing. I'm sharing my opinion. I have nothing to proove to you. As stated previously my Canada is not your Canada, you can take your police state and let it remove your freedoms. It need not apply anywhere near me. I'd take freedom over unjust and unconstitutional totalitarian rule any day of the week. Why not focus on the discussion rather than once again turning this into ad hominem. If you have nothing to add to this discussion other than personal interogation why don't you save yourself the time and trouble and not troll the thread. Your lack of grasp of what "free society" means and section 2 of the charter totally negates any insight you may have on my understanding of the charter. Why not learn something about it before making baseless ascertations. No contradictions here, you might as well just being saying, I lack the capacity to understand a basic principle and am too lazy to actually learn about a subject before I reply just to nag the poster.
  7. In otherwords wrong. You are condoning unconstitutional actions against people which the police are blindly following. Beating people up over a bylaw that is unconstitutional is just plain WRONG. There is no right here other than the side of human dignity and freedom. You lose no matter what in life without those values and you face even worse after that. You don't understand human regardless so I might as well be talking to feces.
  8. Dear god, some people that can vote wern't even alive then.
  9. I dunno was the SS responsible for killing jews, or was it just the law? Perhaps you can go down to your local library and check out a copy of The Diary of Anne Frank, and read it in retrospect to what bravery these protestors actually have.
  10. This is quite the punch after touring all the arab states, who may view Jerusalem as a holy city, which they don't want the Jewish state to control. None the less I think most people view Jerusalem as being part of Israel, aside form the antizionists. Harper government is prozionist, what is so surprising about this? I bet Baird would just love to cut funding to Palestine. They were one of 7 countries that voted against Palestinian statehood. Their loyalties are obvious. The New ME Order is all about the Palestinians and Arab states being stripped of all the land that was taken from them forever Aside from a small portion of the west bank and Gaza, all the rest Israel will pocket contrary to the division of lands between the Arabs and jews in agreements that established the state of Israel in transjordan. That all the posturing is about. We will keep the land. Its all about keeping them on a tight least and in an inferior position. Lets get real though USA and Canada back Israel, not the Arab world, governmentally popular support is another issue. Jews arn't about converting everyone. They will settle on treating you on a relatively equal basis and distancing themselves while getting what they can from you, if you try to control them then perhaps there is grounds for that machivellian Jewish plot to control everyone. The muslims on the otherhand insist on converting you by force. Christians historically were much the same, but they will settle for converting you by controlling your civil life. More or less. That is partially why the US and Canada favour Israel, that and a resurgence of the United Arab States or pan-islamic state would be more powerful than USA, or perhaps even Europe due to their oil reserves, and population, this was put to bed in the 60's and 70's. Canada under the Harper government is pro zionist, today was icing, not an embarrassment for the Harper government. Has there been any actual fallout, other than some Palestinians biting the hand that feeds them?
  11. No I said the city and police are implementing and enforcing an unconstitutional bylaw and their crack down on the basis of that bylaw is unconstitutional. Also "Breaking up" a protest needn't occur, as I said the police should first tell people to leave the streets, such as via loud speaker or bullhorn, if it is a large group, inform them of legitimate charges, such as ccc. nuisance code, and if that fails to read the riot act provision and charge them with rioting.. but direction by the police in ordering them to leave the streets and take the sidewalks is the step prior. Just beating them with riot gear and throwing them around on a bylaw infraction that isn't even constitutional is not acceptable. Also the city and police were well aware it was going to happen but made it a BS process hindered by red tape and formality when the facts have been on the table about the protest for the last 17 year, although this is a seperate protest. In the case of anti police violence. None the less use of this bylaw is not unique and in every instance it is a different situation. For one of the protests it was a street protest (anti police violence), however this one was a different cause (against criminalizing protest) this one people were being moved out of public sidewalks and streets, in what was otherwise peaceful assembly. Police should be using what is already in the criminal code to enforce reasonable and justified actions inventing bylaws to outlaw freedoms Canadians are suppose to enjoy is plainly unconstitutional.
  12. At no point did I advocate for taking over streets. As stated, a crime committed during a protest is still a crime, the point was that protest is not a crime in itself. However, pedestrians do have right of way in crossing non highways. IMO protests which spill over onto roads should be organized, however saying the entire thing is illegal because some individuals take the road it is another matter. Police should respond to the scene and direct people off the roads, not into a box followed by physical arrests for protesting, a bylaw infraction that holds an outrageous fine levy (like equivolent of driving 200km/h driving fine. It is the systematics People should be first given a direction and if they refuse then a citation, if they refuse to leave the road then clearing the road makes sense. (there is a crime called refusing orders of a police officer, and if extreme if violence is associated the riot act provisions of the criminal code, but hell no not protesting a bylaw infraction) but immediately using force, and protesters in the photos were not on roads they were being pushed and dragged out of a public park. I think we both agree protesters should not be a nuisance, what we seem to disagree on is the status of protest as deserving or not deserving default status of being a criminal act. My opinion is that protest is not a crime and it should not be singled out for criminalization because it is unconstitutional. yours is that all protest is criminal and people should be able to be arrested and fined if they don't get permission from the authorities to protest. MY GOD!!! that is socialist, g you are socialist .. you and gaddafi would love each other, are you arab? Any law which criminalizes protest is unconstitutional in Canada, that is my point. Until walkways are privatized the whole of the public should have access to them whether protesting or not protesting. Canadians should be able to enjoy all their freedoms in public space available to the public. The practice of making government a private corporation where the public has no default access is disgusting and backwards and completely fascist. 9. Every one who (a) resists or wilfully obstructs a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty or any person lawfully acting in aid of such an officer, ( omits, without reasonable excuse, to assist a public officer or peace officer in the execution of his duty in arresting a person or in preserving the peace, after having reasonable notice that he is required to do so, or © resists or wilfully obstructs any person in the lawful execution of a process against lands or goods or in making a lawful distress or seizure,is guilty of (d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (e) an offence punishable on summary conviction. R.S., c. C-34, s. 118; 1972, c. 13, s. 7. That is not arrest for bylaw infraction with extreme prejudice and fined over $600 "for protesting"
  13. Yes my opinion is that people should only be allowed to gamble at publicly operated gambling houses if they arn't spending funds that represent social funding meant to remove poverty. That is my opinion. I will not prevent someone from gambling as an individual. I'm not the government. Me as an individual is not me as the government. The government has a responsibility to act for the benefit of society and to protect societies rights, part of that is responsibility to remove poverty, and gambling away funds meant to remove poverty is not responsible for the government to do. You are connecting me and my policy they are not the same. I do not live my life the way my policy dictates I should because it is policy opinion not the real world. I do not act for my benefit or as a reflection of my belief for myself. Understand that. I am not my policy. I'm a very personally socially conservative individual, my social policy is very libertarian. my economic policy is very frugal and progressive infrastructure and capacity building as a direction for removing poverty of the state, while my personal finances are based around travel and essentials for daily living. You seem to have made me and my beleif to be my social policy, they are two seperate thing, what is good for me is not necessarily good for society. I don't believe in policy that represents corruption and conflict of interest. My policy views are not a personal lobby. That is partially why I don't support welfare placements and prefer material support such as social housing, food coops and direct food programs, and supplying basic goods as opposed to cash as part of the poverty reduction methods. Poverty is not about money it is about quality of life. Personally I really don't care about money, to me it is just a ticket to time overseas. I really hate canada in how it operates. My social policy however is very populist based even super-nationalist, because at the core of any libertarian society needs to be a core of state principles which protect the individual and enable them a means of self sufficiency and self defence. With these two individuals can be equal in society. If the state holds too much power and the individual is deprived of access to land, resources and self defence, they become slaves of the state, peasants and subject to rule by the state. That is all what my social policy tries to mitigate, so as to enable the individual. As an individual I am already there but the state doesn't support that in its current form because it wants to strip away the individuals right to self existence and to control every aspect of their life from finances, to land use, to what they can eat and drink, to where they can travel, who they can do business with, what they can beleive, and so on. Those are all police state identities, a free society beleives in individual capacity and as long as individuals do not violate the rights of others they are free to do as they please, that is a free society, and I support a free society because I'm libertarian. I am not anarchist, I think there needs to be reasonble bounds which are non violation of others, but I think it is fully reasonable for the state to say where handouts can be spent, if they are intended for poverty reduction they shouldn't be fed into gambling because some people will go without. While it is reasonable to allocate a morale fund as part of poverty reduction programs and individuals should be free to use it, it would need to be at a reasonable level. I think people should be free to spend their own money but the government should be free to limit access to materials that represent a harm to society, if it is the services they are providing. This is my opinion on drug control also, in that drugs should be able to be bought, but only in levels that are non lethal and will not cause signifigant irreparable permanent damage in regard to balance of outcomes. Personally I don't do drugs, even if I get exposed to them, personally I don't gamble, so these things arn't of personal concern. Do I think it should be illegal to gamble, no. Do I think the government should restrict access to gambling for people living in poverty, yes. Do I think people in poverty should not be able to gamble legally, no. Do I think the government should pay people in poverty to gamble, no. Do I think public funds should be available for poor people to gamble, not specifically. Do I think the government should allocate funds provided to poor people for specific uses, yes, and where possible they should go to material support, not cash. Does this personally advantage me, no. Does it disadvantage me, quite possibly. All I get from your angle of attack is that you think everyone has to be corrupt, selfish and a closet satanist. That's part of the reason I am often disturbed by some of the stuff you guys post, because it is just decay and degenerate in overall composition. Really the worst form of societal entropy of mores. I very much know myself. I'm a moderate, not a fundamentalist, in terms of public policy. As an individual I have a fundamental beleif, none of which rests on social function, it is internal belief that doesn't rely on the world. I'm very much a person of virtues, essentially supporting the human cause, being true to oneself, being faithful in confidence, and doing right in good faith. Am I good person, not in the slightest, am I as evil as I could be, not at all. I'm as good as god allows me to be. Now do I support a free society, certainly but we must be reasonable, and we can't let people victimize others. Gambling is a victimization for the poor who are without. That is why there must be reasonable limits on the poors access to gambling because it is a form of self destruction for them, desperation even. gambling games are fine, gambling for money is not, because society will not provide for them, and they will see hardship without. Now if you do not think that is a case perhaps you can enlighten me on how people in poverty live a good enough quality of life that we needn't be concerned about their lack. Victimization really isn't a healthy thing for society. That is my opinion.
  14. It isn't the world they don't want to know, it is their enemies who put them there. Dude nato and the arab league are openly funding terrorism in a foreign state, that is a big no no so if you talk about where people stand look no further than yourself for where the ground is. The death of 100,000 people and a million refugees is on the hands of nato and the arab league.
  15. I agree with Assad Nato is trying to spy on Syria to enable them to secure the chemical weapons stockpiles, and generate any dirt possible on syria for propaganda purposes. The investigation was for that attack not all of syria. It turns it into spying which is a security risk for a country involved with massive internal insurrection. Canada was also saying how the 25 million it is paying or 2 million it is paying into the investigation is to help nato secure syrian chemical weapons stockpiles... hello??? Syria ain't going to be cool with that. The US for instance has the world largest chemical and biological weapons stockpiles is it going to hand them over to the UN? Hell no, why should anyone expect Syria too. My gosh, let steroid freak USA have all the weapons of mass destruction only... god no. Them and their homeland and tendency to overthrow occupy and install undemocratic puppet regimes ain't much of an advantage over the homebrewed kind, if not worse. Why the hell would any country want the US to be the only one holding the gun, they arn't nice. They are known for human rights abuses torture, an absence of due process, extreme bias economic warfare and general disregard for even their own citizens lives. they are not the cop anyone wants.
  • Create New...