Moonbox

Under these standards you can make up literally any quotes you want and then when pressed just conveniently claim, "The videos/articles etc used to be there but they've been scrubbed." You guys spent enough time arguing about the lack of video/photographic evidence for the hate symbols at the trucker protest (which I agree seemed sparse to non-existent), but you can't demand evidence for something you disagree with and then turn around and tell us that no evidence is required for something you do agree with. That's very obvious faulty logic.

Step back for a moment and consider what you're saying here. If you're allowed to post your literally made-up nonsense, then I'm allowed to comment on how silly it is. The fact that this upsets you is really not my problem and could be easily avoided by not posting made-up BS.

Hey dude. You're not even quoting me. What do you expect me to add to this?

Who decided Harper was his nemesis? Do you think you're maybe projecting a bit here? Ah yes. That bogeyman word, the one so many people have twisted their panties over and assigned all sorts of unintended nefarious meaning. Off to the Gulag with you, I guess? Come on man...

Anyone can say whatever they want, but when you make stuff up and then post it here as fact, you'll get mocked for it. You made a claim. You were challenged on it and failed again to substantiate it, and now you're whining. That about sums up the discussion.

What are you even talking about here? I've asked you twice to answer a simple question. You're just rambling about other stuff now. That's exactly what deflecting is.

Why? Why would he care about outlasting Harper? I don't think any of us can divine his feelings or motives, but I doubt he's been enjoying the last couple months years. Fairly.

I'm not really too interested in your conspiracy theories man. They're all the same no matter the topic, and pretty boring at this point. Whether you believe them or not, whether they're true or not, they have little bearing on how appropriate it is for foreign money to finance domestic protests. I'm talking about the protests. You're deflecting. I asked you a direct question. Could you please answer?

So...no source again. Just made-up silliness. Got it. At least in this thread, can you spare us that sort of low-effort nonsense? You have a dozen other threads for it.

I imagine he said something very different and you played make-believe to transform it into what you claim, just like most of the rest of your quotes and anecdotes. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I'm not too hopeful given your track record with citation.

I think that's more of a pull than a push. I don't think Pfizer and Moderna needed to do a lot of lobbying to get Canadians (or most of the rest of the world) on board with vaccinating. That's another conspiracy theory but whether you believe it or not, it doesn't have much bearing on whether foreigners funding domestic protests is acceptable. How would you feel if an Indigenous protest blocked the TransCanada highway or a pipeline or something, and you had millions of Chinese people sending them $1 each? Answer honestly.

Where did he say that Goddess? Do you have another "solid" source for that?

There's no doubt Trudeau is a hypocrite, but two wrongs don't make a right. If you can't see the problem with foreign funding for domestic protests, and your argument is, "but but but Trudeau!" then you're going to have a tough time being taken seriously. Regarding Ukraine, sending arms to an ally to help them deter outside military aggression is very different from funding domestic protests on their soil. Hopefully you can see that.

That's exactly what it means. It might not change the intent or message of the protest, but when foreign money is being used to support domestic protests, that's influencing Canadian politics at large and it's no bueno. That's another issue altogether but one worth discussing I guess. The SNC Lavalin affair was a pretty clear example of compromised ethics and that wasn't even a foreign corporation. That doesn't make foreign funding for domestic protests any more acceptable, however.

Guys, here's a case where some of us might actually have some sympathy for your arguments and we could find some common ground. Can you try not to drown the thread out in hyperbole like so many others and at least make an attempt at maintaining a reasonable conversation?

@Nationalist Sure. It's possible, just like a whole bunch of other reasons are possible too. Maybe the Ottawa police didn't feel like being responsible for clearing out a national protest. Maybe the police chief sympathized with them. Maybe he was a coward. Maybe the city administration tied his hands. We have no idea right now.

Don't know but there aren't really good alternatives to the Ambassador Bridge. That's why the Gordie Howe Bridge project is so important. The Ambassador Bridge already couldn't handle existing traffic and was a huge bottleneck in the supply chain, so when you close it down there aren't really valid alternatives. I know it's hard to imagine, but I'm also concerned with corporate lobbying and influencing. Croneyism is a general problem with all of our political parties. I've often explained that we have a choice of getting screwed by our public sector unions or by our corporations depending on which party gets elected. I think it's more likely that the existing protestors just keep protesting.

The Ambassador Bridge was fully shut down. Your understanding is wrong. That was over $300M of trade per day that was being compromised. As far as donations go, the bigger issue (IMO) is when you have foreign money financing domestic unrest. The numbers they posted on Monday showed over 50% of the names that were donating to the protest were American. Thankfully that's not Chinese or Russian, but if you can't see the problem with at least that, then you're not really being reasonable.

Myata this thread was for people who wanted to talk about things reasonably. You have a dozen other threads in which to play your broken record.

I wasn't surprised to see the Ottawa police chief resign amidst all this. It would be interesting to get a proper explanation on why they sat on their hands and did basically did nothing for weeks. My impression at first was they figured they didn't have the resources to do it properly/safely, but that explanation fails when the protests continue past the first week.

Yeah I'm not too sure about that one pal. I think we're all a bit confused by this one.

That's what I'm really confused about. I almost wonder if they dawdled for so long on it and people got annoyed at how weak-kneed the response was, but now that they know public support for the protests is minimal, they can beat their drums and pretend they're being tough about it now. I don't want to sound like like one of the other goofs on this forum, but that sort of 'play' would be very Trudeau - waffle and prevaricate until he knows which way the wind is blowing, and then pretend he's a man of principle and action when he knows which direction everyone wants him to face.

Rhetorical question, obviously, but I think we need a better explanation than that, don't we? If we can organize a proper police response for outright rioting, surely we can do the same and clear out the truckers and their supporters, no?

I'm not sure of the logistical situation for Ottawa or Windsor police. If they didn't have the resources to to enforce the law, they should have been provided with them by the provincial or federal governments. If they did have them (which it doesn't sound like) then I think we can blame poor policing. What I'd really like is a proper explanation on why THIS protest is worth of the Emergencies Act when we didn't need it for that one:

I wanted to start this thread to have (hopefully) a more sober discussions about what's happening with Trudeau's latest steps and not have it devolve into nonsense. I came across this article today and I think it makes a fair point. Whether you're for or against the Trucker's Protest, I think the Emergencies Act raises a few eyebrows. https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-by-invoking-the-emergencies-act-the-feds-go-from-no-action-to-the/ "The federal government’s decision to go from virtually no action to the nuclear option to tackle the convoys that have paralyzed downtown Ottawa and seized control of select border crossings to the United States should come with an explanation. That is not an opinion. The Emergencies Act states that “a declaration of a public order emergency shall specify concisely the state of affairs constituting the emergency,” though no written explanation was produced Monday, when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced he was invoking the act for the first time since its creation in 1988, even though provisions under the act came into force immediately." The article goes on to explain how law enforcement did next to nothing about the protestors for weeks and enforced not even basic/obvious bylaw violations, but then all of the sudden the government elects to go for the most extreme tools at its disposal without properly explaining the reasoning behind it. Up until recently the complaints about freedom and liberty were, as far as I'm concerned, just a lot of silliness. With the Emergency Act invoked, Trudeau offers at least some credibility to those complaints and sets a bad precedent. Do I think Trudeau's seizing power and that this is the death of democracy in Canada? Not for a second. I do, however, think he's handling things extremely poorly and we need an explanation forwhy this particular protest couldn't be handled in the same way as others like the G20.