Black Dog Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 Yeah, and they don't tribune his ass for saying things like that, but it's open season on those who are critical of Muslim problems in society. "They" could if "they" wanted to. Quote
August1991 Posted July 3, 2008 Report Posted July 3, 2008 (edited) "They" could if "they" wanted to.That's a really ignorant response, BD.For those who don't get the context, here's the supposed offending post (to which Black Dog didn't give a link): Yeah, and they don't tribune his ass for saying things like that, but it's open season on those who are critical of Muslim problems in society. BD, you no doubt have heard of the phrase: "First they came for the Socialists... " Here's the Wikipedia link... ---- IMV, the CHRC, Warman and the lot are bullies. Like most bullies, they back off when they face a true adversary. Warman or bureaucrats in the CHRC have badgered or cornered how many simple, ordinary people? Warman and the CHRC are schoolyard bullies who pick on easy targets. They back away when they face Rogers Communications. Why? Not because Rogers is guilty/innocent; it's because the CHRC is a bully and it can only take on weak opponents. The CHRC isn't justice or human rights. The CHRC is, to coin a phrase, the audacity of a bully. Edited July 3, 2008 by August1991 Quote
White Doors Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) Macleans doersn't have a legal staff per se, Rogers does and you can bet they don't sit around doing nothing...with well over 50 magazines in thier fold... Sure they have lawyers for advice in matters, but when they actually have to litigate, do you think they use the lawyers that they have on staff or the lawyers who are experience litigators? Edit - great post August. my thoughts exactly. Edited July 4, 2008 by White Doors Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
M.Dancer Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Sure they have lawyers for advice in matters, but when they actually have to litigate, do you think they use the lawyers that they have on staff or the lawyers who are experience litigators?Edit - great post August. my thoughts exactly. With Rogers....I don't know. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Black Dog Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 That's a really ignorant response, BD. Touchy? IMV, the CHRC, Warman and the lot are bullies. Like most bullies, they back off when they face a true adversary.Warman or bureaucrats in the CHRC have badgered or cornered how many simple, ordinary people? Warman and the CHRC are schoolyard bullies who pick on easy targets. They back away when they face Rogers Communications. Why? Not because Rogers is guilty/innocent; it's because the CHRC is a bully and it can only take on weak opponents. The CHRC isn't justice or human rights. The CHRC is, to coin a phrase, the audacity of a bully. Oferfuxsakes. Look, the CHRC reviews the cases presented to them. They don't instigate them. Whatever one's personal feelings on the CHRC's juridstiction over speech (I happen to be on the side of free speech here), to imply, as you and sharkman do, that the CHRC is seeking out easy targets to push around is simply nonsense. They don't pick the battles that come to them, but they do decide which cases to hear. In this case, they heard the case and found it wanting. That's a good thing. Back to this: Warman or bureaucrats in the CHRC have badgered or cornered how many simple, ordinary people? You tell me. You're implying they are hunting down ordinary people and dragging them before their kangaroo court. It would be incumbent on you to back that shit up. Quote
White Doors Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Oferfuxsakes. Look, the CHRC reviews the cases presented to them. They don't instigate them. Whatever one's personal feelings on the CHRC's juridstiction over speech (I happen to be on the side of free speech here), to imply, as you and sharkman do, that the CHRC is seeking out easy targets to push around is simply nonsense. They don't pick the battles that come to them, but they do decide which cases to hear. In this case, they heard the case and found it wanting. That's a good thing. Actually, you are wrong. Warman is a former emplyee working in the same office as the CHRC and he is the only one to EVER bring a complaint forward to the CHRC in regards to chapter 13 of the free expression part. Oh, and he has WON everyone of his cases. You think that is normal? You think that his being a former emplyee and still using the offices of the CHRC.. Plus the fact they are being investigated by the RCMP for trolling for racists by using racist language on a message board.... and you still think that they don't instigate them? That's Ignorance on your part. Either you don't know or don't care. Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
HisSelf Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 I feel like Audrey Hepburn in "Sabrina". There's a great scene where she is sitting at the head of a board table and spinning around in the chiar's chair. You have to see it to understand what an incredible actress Hepburn was. She conveys a human spirit that is really quite remarkable. The chair stops, and she says somehting to the efffect "I call this meeting to order, but I must decalre that the outset that the chair is rather dizzy." First of all, Ezra Levant is an idiot. This is a guy who believes that his scared cows are sacrosanct and everybody else's sacred cows are up for discussion. "What's mine is mine and what's your's is up for discussion." Mark Steyn wrote a book saying that Moslems are trying to take over the world. What would happen if somebody were to write a book saying Jews were trying to take over the world? Steyn started as a disc jockey, somehow got himself a job at the National Toast (founded by covicted and appeal denied felon Black), and now has found himself a job at the National Toast retirement home: Muckleans. If Steyn had any qualifications as a historian, one might consider taking him seriously. In fact, he is just another loudmouth crackpot Ken Whyte has hired to build readership. Quote ...
White Doors Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) well you obviously haven't read the book because he is not a historian nor is his book about history. lol but you continue on dismissing people's right to free speech because you do not disgaree with what they are saying (even if you don't bother to see what it is they are saying). after they are gone, they will come for others until they get to you and you will have no one to come help defend your rights too. edit to add: First of all, Ezra Levant is an idiot. This is a guy who believes that his scared cows are sacrosanct and everybody else's sacred cows are up for discussion this actually descibes your attitude on this matter. ironic you use it to attack others. maybe you are starting to see the light after all.. but I doubt it - more likely you ARE just that completely un self aware. Edited July 4, 2008 by White Doors Quote Those Dern Rednecks done outfoxed the left wing again.~blueblood~
August1991 Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 First of all, Ezra Levant is an idiot..... If Steyn had any qualifications as a historian, one might consider taking him seriously. In fact, he is just another loudmouth crackpot Ken Whyte has hired to build readership. According to you, Levant is an idiot, Steyn is a loudmouth. So what! All of this is beside the point.In Canada, we have created a State bureaucracy that has the power to decide who is an idiot, loudmouth or a crank and silence them. That's not the kind of Canada that I want to have. Quote
Wilber Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 According to you, Levant is an idiot, Steyn is a loudmouth. So what! All of this is beside the point.In Canada, we have created a State bureaucracy that has the power to decide who is an idiot, loudmouth or a crank and silence them. That's not the kind of Canada that I want to have. Ditto Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
HisSelf Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 well you obviously haven't read the book because he is not a historian nor is his book about history.lol This was my point. Can you read? but you continue on dismissing people's right to free speech because you do not disgaree with what they are saying (even if you don't bother to see what it is they are saying). Where did I say Mark Steyn does not have a right to free speech? I love that Mark Steyn has a right to free sppech. It is like turning over a stone. The millipedes scuttle out into the open waving their pincers and antennae and wiggling their funny ass... after they are gone, they will come for others until they get to you and you will have no one to come help defend your rights too. Ha. OK. If I write a book that says Jews are taking over the world, will Snark Steyn defend me? LOL. What a joke. Quote ...
August1991 Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Oferfuxsakes. Look, the CHRC reviews the cases presented to them. They don't instigate them. Whatever one's personal feelings on the CHRC's juridstiction over speech (I happen to be on the side of free speech here), to imply, as you and sharkman do, that the CHRC is seeking out easy targets to push around is simply nonsense. They don't pick the battles that come to them, but they do decide which cases to hear. In this case, they heard the case and found it wanting. That's a good thing.Given the backlog of the various human rights commission/tribunals across, you are incredibly naive to state that, BD.Back to this:You tell me. You're implying they are hunting down ordinary people and dragging them before their kangaroo court. It would be incumbent on you to back that shit up. Hunt down ordinary people? Pretty much.Given the shit (to use your vocabulary) that's posted on the Internet, or said in chatrooms, Warman and the HRCs could probably go after a large share of the Canadian population. IOW, they arbitrarily pick random people and hound them and bully them. Why do the HRCs do this? Because they can. ---- BD, let me explain my perspective on this issue. These commissions have nothing to do with Human Rights or justice. They are all about picking on people because they can. Bullies are unfortunately a fact of life. We have to be extremely cautious when bullies have access to the powers of the State. Quote
Black Dog Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Actually, you are wrong.Warman is a former emplyee working in the same office as the CHRC and he is the only one to EVER bring a complaint forward to the CHRC in regards to chapter 13 of the free expression part. Oh, and he has WON everyone of his cases. You think that is normal? You think that his being a former emplyee and still using the offices of the CHRC.. Plus the fact they are being investigated by the RCMP for trolling for racists by using racist language on a message board.... and you still think that they don't instigate them? That's Ignorance on your part. Either you don't know or don't care. Are you dense? A former employee does not represent the CHRC. Your implication that he's acting as the CHRC's covert enforcer demands evidence. August: Given the backlog of the various human rights commission/tribunals across, you are incredibly naive to state that, BD. please enlighten me as to the conspiracies that lurk behind the doors of HRCs. Hunt down ordinary people? Pretty much.Given the shit (to use your vocabulary) that's posted on the Internet, or said in chatrooms, Warman and the HRCs could probably go after a large share of the Canadian population. IOW, they arbitrarily pick random people and hound them and bully them. Why do the HRCs do this? Because they can. You're accusing the CHRC of initiating these cases. It wouldn't hurt to provide some evidence that that is the case. To this point: Given the shit (to use your vocabulary) that's posted on the Internet, or said in chatrooms, Warman and the HRCs could probably go after a large share of the Canadian population. Perhaps. Yet they don't, do they? If they do: show me. Above, you say that the sheer volume of cases is evidence. I'm not convinced. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Mark Steyn wrote a book saying that Moslems are trying to take over the world. Wrong! Dead Wrong! Do you enjoy putting words in the mouths of straw men? This technique is why many of us don't respect leftwing debaters. Steyn wrote that the RESULT of Moslem birth rates and the philosophies of SOME of the more fundamentalist Moslems will inevitably result in most of the world being run or directed by Moslems. His premise was as dispassionate as the idea that if you plant mostly wheat seeds your crop will be mostly wheat! When you don't read the book but make statements about what's in it you lose credibility. The next time you make a statement I'm gonna ask for a few grains of salt... Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
HisSelf Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 (edited) Wrong! Dead Wrong!Do you enjoy putting words in the mouths of straw men? This technique is why many of us don't respect leftwing debaters. Steyn wrote that the RESULT of Moslem birth rates and the philosophies of SOME of the more fundamentalist Moslems will inevitably result in most of the world being run or directed by Moslems. His premise was as dispassionate as the idea that if you plant mostly wheat seeds your crop will be mostly wheat! When you don't read the book but make statements about what's in it you lose credibility. The next time you make a statement I'm gonna ask for a few grains of salt... I read the book. I wil admit that I had to do it standing in the aisles of a Chapters/Indigo because I'll be damned if I'll pay a bloody penny that will go to this moron. This was exactly his intent. Get a clue. Edited July 4, 2008 by HisSelf Quote ...
M.Dancer Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 I read the book. I wil admit that I had to do it standing in the aisles of a Chapters/Indigo because I'll be damned if I'll pay a bloody penny that will go to this moron.This was exactly his intent. Get a clue. Your post was better befoe you editted it. Why not just tell the truth? You believe what others who have not read the book either say about it.. You really carry no weight and are not believable in the least. Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Huh? Cupping ear to hand. Huh? That, ladies and gentlemen, is definitive proof that one cannot hear from inside one's own ass. Quote
HisSelf Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 That, ladies and gentlemen, is definitive proof that one cannot hear from inside one's own ass. Apparently we have an expert on listening to one's own ass. A contortionist of remarkable skill. Somebody with lips of ... well... We hereby dub thee knight templar Puckered Brown. Long may you squat. Quote ...
g_bambino Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Apparently we have an expert on listening to one's own ass. A contortionist of remarkable skill. Somebody with lips of ... well... Nice try! Quote
Wilber Posted July 4, 2008 Report Posted July 4, 2008 Here We Go Again Quote "Never trust a man who has not a single redeeming vice". WSC
Argus Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 I read the book. I wil admit that I had to do it standing in the aisles of a Chapters/Indigo because I'll be damned if I'll pay a bloody penny that will go to this moron. Interesting statement. You read a book while..... standing in the aisles of Chapters? You spent hours standing up reading an entire book by a man you're dismissing as a moron and a hatemonger? BTW, there's no such store as Chapters/Indigo. Have you ever even been to a book store? This was exactly his intent. Get a clue. Ah so people should be punished for what you decide is their intent in writing a book, not for what the book actually says. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Apparently we have an expert on listening to one's own ass. A contortionist of remarkable skill. Somebody with lips of ... well... One does not need to be an expert to recognize excrement for what it is, and your posts most certainly qualify. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
sharkman Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 (edited) Huh? Cupping ear to hand. Huh? So you read an entire book whilst standing around in Chapters, eh? Riiiiight. If you're going to tell whoppers, at least try to make them believable, Einstein. (Edit: If you actually did read the whole book, that is sad for an entirely different reason.) Anyway, I'm surprised to see that the complaint against Macleans was dropped. I suppose you could say free speech won the day. But the tribunal case in BC is still ongoing I think, so we will see. Edited July 5, 2008 by sharkman Quote
DogOnPorch Posted July 5, 2008 Report Posted July 5, 2008 Here We Go Again Imagine if the BCHRT got a hold of Don Rickles during his Dean Martin Roast days. Don insulted everyone and without the 'protection' of political correctness. ------------------------------------- Sammy (Davis Jr), I wish you wouldn't have touched me....you people rust. ---Don Rickles Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.