yarg
-
Posts
68 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by yarg
-
-
"Unnaturally"??? Compared to what? Inbred royalty declaring ownership of entire continents? Yea...that's natural!
I don't get it either, the history of the whole planet (or at least most of it) is one of conquest, wether it be through treaties or all out war, it is still conquest, it is the natural order of things.
-
The problem I see with all of these arguments is that those of us that are against these trouble makers have allowed these people to exist in our society for too long through our own gutless inaction and desire to be nice to everyone. Im all for live and let live until I have to pay to enable some lazy asshole to be 'different', you know the counter culture types who think thier individuality should be celebrated above all else and work is just for the sheeple who just don't understand how they are being used by the man. Why don't you people who believe in that shit just stfu and do something with your lives already, life isn't free and shouldnt be, i can promise you i grew up with less than most of these people, and with a lot of work and some luck im doing ok for myself, sometimes things work out, sometimes they don't, thats the way life should be, it isn't my responsibility to fix anything for anyone else but myself.
As an example there was a woman on cbc whining about how she had kids and was losing her house, now she was pretty well spoken but appearently couldn't get a good enough job to support her family, now that happens to the best of us, and we should help people when they are down and out, however, maybe the fact that she had three piercings through her lower lip had an impact on her prospects. But the left would say that she is just expressing herself as an individual and we should respect her for who she is, well fuck that.
Any woman in her thirties with children that has piercings in her lower lip has issues imo, and in the opinion of many others no doubt, we all judge people everyday all of the time, that isn't going to change. Normal society has a certain level of expectations of all of us, if you want to ignore those expectations because you think you're somehow above the rest of us sheep you can do so at you're own peril. It should not be my responsibility to support you or your rugrats when you decide to act like you are somehow different then the rest of us. Lose the fucking piercings, comb your damn hair and try to improve your situation, it may not work, but that doesn't mean you don't try. Its time to stop coddling these people, you want to be different? ok, have at it, but the consequences of your actions shall be your own to suffer.
-
what colour is the sky in your world william?
Exactly what about his statement is incorrect?
-
Simply because for the first time in history that I am aware of we have a very privleged group of people who have convinced themselves that their own heritage is evil despite the fact that the acts of their ancestors, often acts of imperialism, have given them this privlege.
-
Nope, no answers. Only silence as dead as in the heart of Wahabi desert at about 1.59 past midnight.
But no worries. We only have to wait couple of weeks/months for the same people to pop up with the same old unprovable and irrational but nonetheless highly cherished ideas that simply have to be imposed on everybody else in the world.
What hypocrits, the far left has been imposing their beliefs on our society for decades, many Canadians, in some cases a majority disagree with some of these beliefs, but hey since you believe in them they must be correct, all other beliefs void. Not only that, any compromise or desire to find middle ground is also unwelcome, talk about imposing irrational ideals on the rest of the world.
-
I think we're talking about militant leftists. Shady had it right.
-k
Agreed, go to http://www.rabble.ca/babble/national-news/royal-bank-canada-firebombed-ottawa-communique to see what they think of the bombing, they represent the far left as much as anyone in this country, seeing as at least 75% of them support this act that tells me enough about anarchists and the left.
-
But this idea that it would be just fine for a woman to terminate a pregnancy at ANY time is indefensible on any moral level. Only in cases when the health of the mother is seriously at risk should that be an option late in pregnancies.
That's exactly how things already are, law notwithstanding.
You are demanding to solve a problem that doesn't exist, by creating one that has huge and far-reaching implications.
If there is no law, there are no rules, anything is possible, and it shouldn't be legal for a woman to terminate a fetus (baby) very late in a preganacy, period.
If the problem doesn't exist what is the problem with enshrining it in law, it seems that law would not cause anyone, except maybe a left wing crusader, any concern at all. A law that states you shall not terminate a preganacy beyond a certain number of weeks would do nothing beyond just that, no amount of paranoia justifies your asertion. The groups that most defend abortion at anytime consider a fetus to be a parasite and of no value, i defend thier right to make that choice, but not without some reasonable limitations.
Btw, i am not "old", nor am I uneducated, im sure most of you on the left are educated as well, but then arts degrees don't count for much in my book, stereotypes are wonderful things, though sometimes they are true.
-
Yes it does, Argus, it answered it very clearly when it didn't impose a law on you to donate your kidney (bone marrow, blood, etc) every time somebody in dire condition needs it.
This is no argument at all, a fetus is a seperate form of life growing inside of a woman, some feminists call them parasites, the same type of feminists that want no restrictions at all on abortion. A kidney is part of your body, giving it away takes away from your body, a fetus is an additional part when it is gone the body returns to its complete state.
And indeed being uncomfortable about other's choices is a normal state of affairs in this complex and diverse society. Requiring others to be forced into standards that I declare to be the only right ones is much different thing though, a clear symptom of ideology driven, socially conservative way of thinking.
Some choices are wrong, even when women make them, imagine that, women aren't perfect.
Well, why don't we do it a logical way, leading by example as opposed to useless preaching? You asking for people to abandon control over their bodies, so what part of control over your own body are you willing to let go of, for the greater good?
At 8 months a fetus is a fully viable baby, even before that, the very possibility that some idiot woman and some crazy doctor could abort an 8 month old fetus is enough to put reasonable legal limits on abortion. Oh but it never happens anyway so why make a law about it, if it never happens then it shouldn't be a problem.
I am pro abortion, I want women to have choice, I also want women to make those choices in a reasoanble way, abortion should not be considered some small insignifiacnt thing, women have the power to end a pregnancy, they should at least be willing to do it in a timely fashion. The vast majority, if not all, do just that, so a law saying that you can't legally do it beyond x number of weeks wouldnt do much except make abortion a bit more palatable for moderates on the issue.
But this idea that it would be just fine for a woman to terminate a pregnancy at ANY time is indefensible on any moral level. Only in cases when the health of the mother is seriously at risk should that be an option late in pregnancies.
-
The same liberals that complain about conservative spending were demanding the conservatives spend more on the stimulus package last year and shortly after complained about the deficit, yeah we need more of those liberals..
-
the police have come out solidly in favour of the registry saying it saves lives and assists them in their work who are you to say otherwise? it's not you going to domestic disputes where there may or may not be weapons present something they like to know, it's police lives on the line not yours...
The police want access to anything and everything they think could in any way help them. Do you really want the police to have any power they think will help them do their job? How about warrant-less wire taps? How about entering your home and searching it without cause? O but you are a liberal with nothing to hide right? I don't have anything to hide either, but that isn't the point, it is wrong to make criminals out of generally law abiding people simply because the police want it, or some left wing nut bar feminist group wants it, we are supposed to make reasoned decisions based upon facts not feelings, the facts available (the real ones) show the registry to be redundant and useless.
If these police were so honest and non political they wouldn't be using tax payer money to put pro registry propaganda on the internet, seems like a conflict of interest to me and many others, so much for the ethical police; http://www.truthsandmyths.ca Brought to you by the Toronto police service, of course they don't actually identify themselves, but a whois check shows that it is in fact owned and registered by the Toronto police.
WHOIS search results
Domain name: truthsandmyths.ca
Domain name status: EXIST
Domain number: 3412626
Approval date: 2010/04/15
Renewal date: 2011/04/15
Updated date: 2010/04/15
Registrar name: easyDNS Technologies Inc.
Registrar number: 88
Registrant name: Toronto Police Service
Registrant number: 53968
Registrant description: Police Services for the City of Toronto
Administrative contact
Name: Pedja Ljubomirovic
Job title: Webmaster
Postal address: Toronto Police Service
40 College Street
Toronto ON M5G 2J3 Canada
Phone: +1 (416) 808-7106
Fax: +1 (416) 808-7102
This site is also linked through the coalition for gun control, so there you have a public service using public money spreading lies in concert with another lobby group originally funded by the Chretien liberals, funded by the federal government of the day (Chretien liberals), and it's job was to lobby that same government for stricter gun control...move along folks, nothing to see here.
I should add that this is the same coalition for gun control that accepted a $100,000 donation from CGI the company that runs the the registry's computer infrastructure, conflict of interest much? These are the people that the liberals are following, liars all of them.
-
Did a new tinfoil shipment just arrive or something?
No, it is obviously late in arriving. That poster would fit right in at rabble.ca/babble, most of them haven't seen tinfoil in years.
-
Good. National defence trumps professional feminists...
Not in this Canada unfortunately, but there are signs that the pendulum is on the back swing.
-
This is a very typical women vs those bad men argument,
"Your testicles will not carry a fetus for nine months. The situations really are not comparable. Once a baby is born, then both mother and father have equal legal responsibilities. Prior to that point, it is only the woman."
This quote sums it up nicely, women want all of the autonomy to decide if your child lives or dies but then once it is born it is now your responsibility, how convenient to have complete control of your own body and then have the ability to make someone else pay for your decisions. We put limits on almost everything in society, but when it comes to women, nope can't do that, if women were so keen to exercise their own responsibility and autonomy there could be many fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. You want complete control over your body? than control it already, stop making the rest of us pay for your mistakes, you want complete responsibility? be responsible. It seems I can be made responsible for your choice, why can't you be responsible for yours, o right, your female, you are only truly responsible when you want to be, how convenient.
-
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2010/04/27/statscan-knifing-report.html
"In 2008, 34 per cent of 611 homicides reported by police were committed with knives, a seven per cent increase from 1999 and more than double the approximately 15 per cent level of 1974, the first year for which homicide data is available.
The proportion of homicides involving guns, meanwhile, dropped significantly — from approximately 48 per cent in 1974 to 34 per cent in 2008."
Sometimes this is just too easy. Homicides involving knives climbing, and homicides involving guns dropping and dropping for the 30 years prior to the registry, and of course most of the current gun crimes are committed with hand guns and other illegal weapons, 2-3 percent comitted with registered firearms. Wake up liberals.
"Almost half of knife-related homicides between 1999 and 2008 occurred between acquaintances and most commonly during an argument, the report said.
Family members committed 35 per cent of stabbings, while strangers committed the remaining 16 per cent."
Seems that this is the same domestic violence argument the left usually bashes over the heads of firearms owners, where is the knife control? Wake up liberals.
-
Exactly because they are "significant" it makes all the sense to keep on with practical work on tracking all guns (and on that basis, developing mechanisms to prevent them from falling into wrong hands) as opposed to fuming on the account of what's impossible or not feasible.
I'm not going to comment on unreferenced, or selectively posted data. We have earlier established the actual rates of violent crime committed with long guns.
But the registry does serve a real and very practical purpose: to ensure that there's a comprehensive gun control regime in the country, where every gun is licensed and tracked. The way things are done here, very few of such projects on the national scale were flawlessly successful right from the start. Compare it with e.g. our MP's traveling budget.
Quite right any murder is significant, it just so happens the chances of being killed with a registered long gun is statistically much less significant than say the chance of being stabbed to death. So seeing as any murder is equally bad as another why then do we not treat the weapons in the same fashion? We obviously need to spend billions, many times the amount spent on the gun registry, in order to treat equally and proportionately all weapons used in homicides.
The data speaks for itself, you won't comment on it because it doesn't suit your agenda, clearly the truth is not something you care for, You don't like the numbers? Go find some official government stats that prove differently, anything less is wasting our time. It seems facts don't matter to some, then again we knew that already, the very existence of the registry proves that.
-
Can you point to such instance (hundred of stabbings in one incident)? Thought so. There's any number of cases where an armed crackpot killed or wounded 20 people or more in a single incident of mass shooting.
No, there's (or there should be, at least) a separate solution to each part of the problem. The registry does not do all things, it serves comprehensive tracking of all firearms and has no other claims. And without tracking of all guns no meaningful gun control is possible.
No, just does not agree with the facts that are available to everybody (who cares to notice).
You simply can't get over it, but the sad reality is that those moneys are gone, just like the monies buried in the countless earlier episodes of government's incapacity. All that can be saved now is 25 million annually (yes the correct number can be found, only takes better looking) - plus of course the plan to torpedo comprehensive gun control in this country.
Yes I know, but not for the lack of better argument though?
So if more people were killed at one time with other items then it would be more significant, ahh, so the actual number of lives lost doesn't really matter to you. Thanks for making clear your motivations.
I must say, it is amusing when you speak of facts, you wouldn't know a fact if it stabbed you in the chest, which btw is much more likely to happen than being shot with a registered long gun, and that is a FACT.
Do you even know what facts are? Hint, they aren't feelings.
-
The crime rate is ever decreasing so yes it is.
So, I registered for this forum when I saw this thread, and while i know some of you won't listen or don't care because this is only a political exercise for you, here goes anyway.
In 2003, there were 331 homicides in Canada. http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection-R/Statcan/85-205-XIE/0000385-205-XIE.pdf
Of those, 25.1 percent were committed with firearms, 21.8 with knives, 8.8 with blunt objects and 26.3 percent were in the other category.
Of the 25.1 percent or 83 homicides, 13.3 percent were committed with rifles or shotguns, that's a total of 11 rifles/shotguns related homicides.
In 2003 11 rifle/shotgun murders were committed out of a total 331, or 3.3 percent.
Statistics from http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/media/nr/2007/nr20071116-2-eng.aspx indicate that only 47 of the 2441 homicides in the years following the implementation of the registry were registered firearms, or 2 percent.
In 2003 knives were used to commit 21.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no knife registry?
In 2003 blunt objects were used to commit 8.8 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no blunt object registry?
In 2003 the "other" category was indicated in 26.3 percent of homicides, using the numbers above long guns only 3.3 percent, registered long guns as low as 2 percent, why is there no "other" registry?
It is clear that somewhere in the vicinity of 97-98% of homicides in Canada are committed with something other than a rifle/shotgun, registered or not. Violent crime in Canada has been trending downward for 40 years, ironically since the gun registry was implemented the rate has not changed much at all, I don't blame the registry, but it hasn't helped either, of course anyone should be able to see that it never could.
There are many, many other points that are easy to refute, but it's been done and some people just won't listen, because this isn't about actually reducing crime, for some are just afraid, others think hunting is cruel, others see firearms as only a weapon of war, whatever it doesn't matter the reason, it just matters that they are wrong. If we really wanted to save lives, after all a life saved is a life saved right? That life could be saved through better health care, better policing, better roads, better education, you name it. Does anyone have any ideas? Surely we would trade 47 that never had any chance to be saved by the registry for hundreds that could have been saved in our hospitals or on our roads, or in any number of ways, that is the goal right, to save people? 2 billion to our hospitals..2 billion worth of policing...road improvements..it goes on and on and on.
So the registry is in place now and i like many gun owners are fully registered, even discounting the errors, which are many, some say we should keep it going, despite its ineffectiveness. The answer is no, the reason is that it is a bad law, it targets mostly peaceful people and it was only ever enacted to placate the ignorant masses, those who fear firearms but will put themselves at much more risk every day by the way they cross the street, the things they eat or how they drive. It is an irrational, emotional, illogical fear that spawned an equally useless law devised only to buy off those typically left wing voters. We, the adults, need to stop allowing ourselves to be dominated by emotional nonsensical people, the pendulum has swung too far, getting rid of this pathetic law will bring it back at least a little.
It has been mandatory to register hand guns in Canada since 1934, In 2003 79.5 percent of the firearms homicides were committed with hand guns, 79.5, how is that registry working out? There are an estimated 15,000,000 firearms in this country, possibly many more, so of those 83 were used in a homicide in 2003 11 were long guns, that is .00007 percent by my math.
Stop focusing on the tool, focus on the people. Please. Between 2003 and 2007 5193 Canadians were killed by drunk drivers that is 36 percent of the total of over 15,000 vehicle fatalities in those years, I hope all of you that are for the registry are staying off the roads, after all you are about 1800 percent more likely to be killed by a drunk driver than by a registered long gun, being logical and not wanting to be murdered by negligence, you shouldn't drive. But we have to drive you say, and I agree, but then I wonder how many of those 5193 and counting lives could have been saved by 2 billion + dollars, that should matter to you pro registry folks, but it likely won't.
The Silver Covenant Chain Treaty 1710 is alive.
in Federal Politics in Canada
Posted
So, in your argument against logic (which in and of itself is illogical) you present a crime scene and analyse the possible cause of death with a series of unlikely but possible causes, seems only logical to me that one would not want to close your mind to other possible causes of death. Eiher you made a mistake giving this example, or you don't know what logic is.