Moonbox

@ZeitgeistStop yelling slogans when you're totally clueless about what they mean. ?

So the mainstream media lies about everything and your social media sources are ironclad fact. ? If I'm reading this correctly (always hard with your incoherent word-vomit), all of this is a multi-layered and country-spanning conspiracy to...justify Trudeau declaring Martial Law? For someone who knows so many things and uses so many "facts", and who's been raving so angrily about what's going on, you'd think you could at least get the basic story straight about what the Emergency Act is and what it isn't. Then again it's you, so really nothing surprises me about what you say.

I know that you're yelling the words but don't have even the most remote idea what you're talking about. I know that the Courts have dismissed the challenges against the mandates thus far and upheld that they are Constitutional. I know that you guys can't explain anything about the Constitution or the Charter in the first place and that your argument is nothing more than "something something Freeeeedom."

You are just saying "unconstitutional" but can neither explain how or why it is so, nor which Section of our Charter/Constitution is being violated. It's just another clueless slogan along the lines of "muh freeeedom!" and nothing more.

It's not a democracy if you don't get your own way. Got it.

What's the point of that? You can vote no or you abstain. The symbolic impact of abstaining would amount to nothing.

You've spent a lot more time on the 4dchan boards, so you've certainly picked up more mind-warping nonsense than I have. As far as facts go, you've demonstrated that you don't even understand what the word/concept means. Your angry, gibbering rants don't count. Having intense, emotional opinions don't make them facts. If you calm yourself down and actually think before you pound on your keyboard, the quality of the discussions you have here will improve.

I brought up the G20 to show that emergency powers weren't needed there, so it didn't make sense for them here. I'm confused that the massive and heavy-handed police response in Toronto did not require the Emergencies Act, but trucker's blockading did. That's it. Anything beyond that is your own mental fantasy, but no doubt for you it's a lot easier to make up arguments to debate against than to keep your logic straight for more than 30 seconds. This is just another one of your limp strawmen.

The Ottawa police force embarrassed itself and all of Canada. There's a huge grey area between what the government finally did to clear the protest, and the Ottawa police's complete negligence and absence. Ottawa police have something like 1400 officers at their disposal, and the best that they could do was basically nothing? No. To be fair, the officers are not to blame. The police chief's resignation was unlikely voluntary and from what little we've heard he was an ineffective, unpleasant leader that had no plan on how to deal with the protestors or how to make use of the OPP and RCMP officers he'd be asking for.

I'm trying to see if you'll actually post something of substance. You have two topics on the forum right now that are saying basically the same thing, and it's so overly broad and vague that there's no foundation on which to even debate. Michael's tried several times to get you to narrow things down and be specific about your complaints and potential solution, but you've so far proven unwilling or unable. All you can really tell us here is that you think the "system" is broken, that we need to tear it all down, and that you're upset (punching the pillow). Maybe we need a 3rd thread on this...

Tell us how offended you are. Tell us how this hurt your feelings and leaves you feeling marginalized and hopeless.

So again, this is bad, someone needs to do SOMETHING. Thanks for saying so for the 50th time this week.

Read back on that quote, genius. My criticism was that the emergencies act wasn't needed for the G20, so why was it needed here when the protests were clearly more peaceful? The whole point of the thread was to question why the Emergencies Act was needed. In case it wasn't clear, I don't think the Ottawa protestors needed to be tear gassed or kettled. Of course you'll read out of that what you want to hear and make up what my arguments are. Straw man is so much easier to argue against, after all.

I literally couldn't be less concerned that ranting, deluded fools don't care about my opinions. If anything it's a badge of honour. It's hard to even begin typing a response to this sort of petulant, juvenile rambling. Forget the fact that 3/4 of it is stuff on which I've never even commented, let's just highlight this part as the brilliant gem it is: You "know more things" than me in the same way that Donald Trump knows words and has the best words.

Where did I request a repeat of the G20 police response? I hope you didn't hurt yourself when you mustered the mental energy to type this gem of a response out.

Except there's a number of problems with your thesis. First, folks don't agree that the system is as broken as you think, and then even if they do they don't agree with you on what is broken or the causes. You seem to think that you provided an answer to Michael's last question, but you didn't. You once again typed up a bunch of verbose rhetoric that amounted to nothing more than "Everything is bad. We need to do stuff to make it NOT bad"

Why isn't there any news that tells me exactly what I want to hear and nothing but exactly what I want to hear?

Hey, these are noble patriots fighting for our freeeeeeedom.

Depends on which ones you're talking about. The COVID mandates will be phasing out soon as they are no longer deemed necessary, so no need to keep your panties twisted over that. Your right to protest wherever and whenever you want, however, never actually existed so don't hold your breath on that returning.

Ha. If there was ever an obvious example of projection, this would be it. Considering I started this thread to criticize Trudeau and I've already agreed that Trudeau's rhetoric and hyperbole was idiotic and unfair, it's pretty interesting you come back to say I'm "hysterical" about it.

Your employer's cares or lack thereof are irrelevant, since that's not where the mandates are coming from. Your health and age are also not the only considerations considering a virus is a public health issue and go beyond Mr. West's selfish and obstinate whining. Regardless, you've pivoted yourself away from the original debate and clearly lost the thread of the discussion.

"Injured?" What does that even mean? Where are those numbers again? Still waiting... ? Even if your numbers are correct (doubtful!), how does a 1/10,000 chance of being "injured" by a needle compare to the same chances of being shot? This of course ignores the reality that the vaccine protects you from "injury" or "death" from a virus, whereas lining up to be potentially shot in the face by your employer would serves no observable purpose. Great analogy man. You really thought that one through! ?

I'm not sure you really have a ground-in-reality understanding of what's happening in the first place, judging by the embarrassing analogy you presented. The point of such an argument is to demonstrate similar/parallel reasoning, but yours faceplanted out of the gate. You can't explain why employers would insist on whimsically murdering 1/10,000 of their workers as a condition of their employment, because that's an idiotic idea from the start. The why behind the vaccine mandates are clear. Whether or not you agree with them doesn't change that. You can try to make your case on why the reasoning/justification for them is bad, but retarded analogies that make absolutely no sense aren't going to get you there. They just make you look foolish.

I can't find anything on it. If you're going to throw the claim around and if it's such readily available information, please share it. I'm willing to be proven wrong. Or ones who come up with imbecilic hypothetical scenarios where employers shoot 1 in 10,000 of their employees for absolutely no reason, and think they're presenting valid arguments.

It's becoming more and more clear that the OP doesn't really understand what gaslighting means. ?