Moonbox

First off, it's "lose", not "loose". Second, you keep bringing up that things are unconstitutional, but you've made it crystal clear that you don't have a freaking clue what that word even means. You don't understand the Constitution or the Charter, and it's brutally obvious that you don't know what English Common Law is. Your arguments are contradictory and operate entirely outside the boundaries of logic and, as I've already stated, they're based on literally nothing more than how you feel. The fact that almost everything you're writing is pure nonsense doesn't matter to you. You feel your notions are correct and that's good enough for you. From where others stand, however, you might as well just be screaming loud noises at us and inserting words like freedom, justice and human dignity etc into your vapid ramblings. Your arguments wouldn't make any less sense, and we'd still be able to see that you don't really understand what those words and concepts mean anyways.

and what...they incited the black block?

What we know is that the police at the G20 protests overstepped their bounds and Chief Blair looked incompetent. The idea of a US/Canadian conspiracy of the CIA, CSIS, RCMP and Secret Service trying to cause mayhem is idiotic.

The courts haven't spoken because there's been pretty much nothing to say. I'd advise you not to hold your breathe on that one! and how often, and for how long, do those streets get shut down??? That's one of the stupidest things I've read in awhile here, and kind of shows us how rational you are.

That's the best part of Section 1. What's reasonable isn't for you or the everyday moron and protestor to decide. It's up to the legislature and, more importantly, the courts! In this case, Montreal enacted a bi-law to help deal with the chaos of the last year or so. The bi-law was reasonable and merely stated if there was going to be a large assembly, the police needed info on where they were going etc. This was a simple and reasonable requirement (easily accomodated), and the protestors threw it back in the authorities' faces. They have nobody to blame but their own obstinance for any fines and arrests. Neat 'testimonial'. How often does Yonge St get shut down for any length of time? I think what's more clear is that the residents of Montreal are tired of the same loser protestors clogging up their streets and public spaces, hence how little public support they have.

This reminds me of Billy Madison. Everyone is a little bit stupider from having read that wall of text. Irrational doesn't even begin to describe it. Delusional is a better fit. Shortlived, you're a testament to our failed post-secondary education system, and a good example of the type of person who should never have been let in. Even the most pointless university degree is supposed to help you firm up basic logic skills. People who don't have them, however, are just going to waste everyone's time and money, and develop totally brain dead 'notions' like what we just saw from shortlived.

lol good one. Unfortunately, we're trying to reason with an unreasonable person. He's not going to understand the contradiction.

Don't bother. You'll get laughed at less if you don't. The more you natter the more clear it becomes that you have nothing intelligent to say.

He doesn't support suppression. His sense of freedom and justice, however, are supported by the principles of logic, reason, and fact. The problem you have, shortlived, along with your juvenile little protester friends, is that your sense of justice is based on literally nothing more than how you feel. Logic and reason don't even enter into the equation. You can whine and wet your pants about everything all you want, but until you can actually gain some perspective (ie view your infantile and braind-dead arguments from any point of view other than your own), you're never going to get anywhere. The 'protests' in Montreal are the equivalent of a toddler throwing a tantrum. There's next to no coherency. Your points are vapid, and you're crying loudly hoping that someone will eventually give you some attention. Montreal, however, along with the rest of the province and the country itself, is dealing with you the wayyou're supposed to deal with a childish tantrum -- ignoring it. Nobody's listening. Nobody cares.

You misunderstand. I have nothing against the casino really. Stupid people will find ways to part with their money regardless, so it might as well go to something that's going to generate taxes. I didn't do that. I merely said that casinos are stupid traps. That doesn't mean that smart and reasonable people don't go there, just that a lot of stupid people do, and they're the ones who get themselves in trouble.

Casinos redistribute wealth from the stupid to the less stupid. Stupid people are not good at hanging on to their money, so I don't really see how things will change.

Ahh...Section 1, my favorite part of the whole document. It's a godsend for shutting down the intellectually vacant arguments of losers. The interesting part about it is that it says, "It guarantees rights and freedoms ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS...etc." It was deliberately written that way for our common law society. It's hilarious that you interpret its meaning and use in the following way: I mean, that's really cute that you think this is a question of which right supersedes what. Unfortunately for your argument, what Section 1 of the Charter actually does is declare that your right to protest only extends so far as is REASONABLE. The protests in Montreal became way too common, had way too little public support (ie. next do none) and were way too disruptive to continue unimpeded. The people and the City of Montreal determined it was no longer reasonable to allow these loser malcontents to continue disrupting regular city life as they please. Nobody is preventing peaceful assembly. Legislators simply determined that it was unreasonable to allow the same disenfranchized morons to shut down parts of the city over and over again as they pleased, especially when they had so little popular support. It doesn't take much to shut down a major road or city centre, and there is no lack of causes for protesters. Would it be REASONABLE to have shut Bay or Yonge St shut down in Toronto every time an anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, anti-immigration, anti-GMO, anti-Free Trade, Idle No More...etc. group decided they wanted to march? Absolutely not is the answer you're looking for, and that's exactly how the Legislature, the Courts and Law Enforcement interpret things.

I didn't jump to conclusions. August brought a very strong and intelligent point up in favour of CMHC, and then you quoted him and replied with a bunch of nonsense and then explained how you didn't want/need the banks because you were going to ask your parents to help you out. Brilliant. Don't spend too much money. That IS a good idea, but I'm not sure what you thought that was adding to the discussion, nor how it pertains to CMHC. CMHC is a Crown corporation and the government has taken fairly significant steps recently to curb consumer spending on the back of their homes. So for those people who CAN afford a mortgage payment, but don't yet have $60-75,000 saved up in a bank account, is it better to force them to toss rent $$$ down the toilet (thereby making a probably wealthy person wealthier), or is it better to facilitate them taking control of their financial destiny and exchange their rent payment with essentially an investment plan into home equity? I work in finance, and spent the beginning of my career doing mortgage and secured financing. I know a lot more about how things stand than most.

GoshHacked, do you realize how pitiful you sound? You're against CMHC and telling people they should save up on their own to buy a house, yet you're approaching mommy and daddy for help buying your own house? That's hilarious. Some people don't have mommy and daddy to help look after them.

Liberals will win. I think Pierre Trudeau was the worst PM Canada's ever had, but there are tons of "low-information" voters who revere him for all sorts of fluffy, insubstantial nonsense, and those same brain-dead tendencies will lead them to his son. Those people, unfortunately, are the vast majority, and will vote solely based on charisma (history's taught us how well that usually works) rather than ideas/plans (Justin has presented zero) and credentials (school teacher...yay). I firmly believe that Harper needs to go, and I was hoping that the Liberals could present an intelligent strategy and leader (Marc Garneau, Martha Hall Findlay etc), but they've chosen the intellectually bankrupt path instead with a leader who has nothing but his father's name and a winning smile to stand on. There's no real cure for a dumb electorate. Voters fell for Harper's idiotic attack ads and they'll fall equally hard for Justin's vacant smile.

If you've been following politics long enough, then you'd have a clue what you're talking about. Sure, Canadians are embracing Trudeau, who is certainly young and charismatic and feeds off his father's legacy. Honest, however, is another story, and he's going to play the divide and conquer game just like his father did, and just like Harper has done. There's nothing honest or energetic about him. He could have the IQ of a spider monkey and still win the next election. Harper would be done with or without him. By the next election he'll have been in power for ~10 years and that's usually long past the expiration date of most political leaders. This BS about threatening democracy is ridiculous though, and it's not something anyone but spastic know-nothings like yourself rant about. Also, popular opinion is well against the unions nowadays, particularly the public ones, and the impending defeat of the Ontario Liberals (near future) will give you all the evidence you need for that.

Your description of the spending habits of single women is disturbing. I would say that single mothers (in my experience working in the financial industry) are some of the most responsible and frugal Canadians out there. Raising a kid by yourself makes you that way. The implication that women somehow will appreciate tighter lending rules or something more than the average man or married woman is totally ludicrous. You're usually way smarter than that August...

The cultural homogenization of trading partners is, in fact, a real phenomenon, but you clearly don't understand it very well. When there is a lot of cross border traffic, naturally things like art, food, music and customs will follow, and some of them will be adopted. This is based on people just naturally taking a liking to new things. The suggestion that a Calgary WASP-led party is adopting the culture and political tendencies of China because of trade, however, is ludicrous, and it's sad that you're even suggesting it. With that sort of broken, infantile logic, we should assume that Canada has naturally adopted the gun toting culture of the USA, because they're our biggest trading partner. What? We have only a small fraction of the per-capita gun deaths the USA does? That's what I thought.

Trade with China has made our government more secretive? What?

Their oil is cheaper than ours.

Sorry. Your grapes are so sour it's hard to tell!

Good thing you're not making any decisions for anyone. Just because you're living at the poverty line doesn't mean that people who've been successful in life and made intelligent choices should too.

After 4 years of no increases, a 1.6% raise is pretty tame and pretty reasonable...

Lol! There it is! That's the crazy talk I think we've all been anticipating from you! We just had to be patient with you! Even better! This is hilarious!!! Why are you quoting the Constitution or the Charter if you're not 'party' to the Law? That's such an idiotic contradiction I don't even know where to begin. Suffice it to say that this is the sort of brainless, intellectually empty argument that the 'disenfranchised' losers that show up to these protests tend to make. It's like a fish flopping around on the beach, hoping that something--anything is going to get him back in the water. No, this is something you and your loser friends have chosen to believe to explain why your situation in life sucks. It's someone else's fault. You're disenfranchised because your entire system of logic and reason is comically broken. I find people like you fascinating, not because anything you actually say is interesting/sensible, but because you so utterly lack the ability to shift perspective and gain any insight from anything inconsistent with your delusions. Literally everything you just wrote here is total rubbish. It's almost all nonsense, you contradict yourself all over the place and then you just ramble. Instead of considering the possibility that your disenfranchisement is the result of you simply being irrational and unreasonable, you've decided that everyone else is the problem. Hilarious.

Eloquently spoken, lol. The only thing that sucks is your juvenile, broken logic. If you went to post-secondary, like you say, it's pretty clear the system failed you. There are TONS of outlets in this country for dissent, and protests happen everywhere in Canada all throughout the year. There is a VERY big difference between the right of dissent and to protest, and the right to protest wherever, whenever and with as many people as you want. This is the third time I've pointed this out to you, and it'll probably be the third time you ignore it and rant about something else nobody is interested in. I'm not sure how thick you're trying to be, but maybe it will sink in THIS time (doubt it). People's right to express their opinion/protest DOES NOT transcend the right of people to live their lives without unnecessary nuisance/inconvenience/harassment. Roads/streets are built for cars/trucks to drive down. Parks are meant for people to enjoy the outdoors. Town centres are places to do business in. A protest, by its very nature, obstructs the proper use of these spaces. People have to drive out of their way, parks become unpleasant places to be and business ends up being shut down in town centres because people aren't interested in the noise and congestion. The people have a right to enjoy these spaces for their proper use, and the authorities have an obligation to maintain them for such purposes. Allowing the use of this space for protesters' purposes is not out of the question, but it's not going to be wherever/whenever they want, especially not when it's a bunch of idiot fringe protesters and there is no popular support for the movement. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone has something to protest, but is Toronto going to allow Yonge/Bay St to shut down every time a bunch of right-wing Bible-thumpers want to protest abortion or gay marriage? No. Here's another place where your argument falls apart. You consider whatever sub/fringe group the average loser protester belongs to as the 'people'. Unfortunately for you, the actual "People" want their public spaces free to use without large groups of obnoxious malcontents obstructing them. If there was any question of 'freedom' and the people actually perceived a loss thereof, these protests wouldn't be so easily dismantled. As it stands, the 'People' see them for what they are: A bunch of uncooperative/belligerent losers with poor me/protest mentalities ranting about a bunch of farcical garbage that nobody cares about or believes. I'll take my reality, my faith in logic/reason and in my abilities to positively shape my life over your pathetic 'woe-is-us' fantasy that you're being downtrodden and oppressed any day.