Jack Weber Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 No! You need your head examined! Standing up for what you feel is important? Damn straight thats brave! Bravest person in Canada! WWWTT Is this the drivel that passes for lucid thought at Bedwetter.ca (Rabble.ca) ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mentalfloss Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 And what will it cost her to be a dumb bitch? Apparently, a new job with PSAC, lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Is this the drivel that passes for lucid thought at Bedwetter.ca (Rabble.ca) ? From what I've seen over there, ABSOLUTELY! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Why don't we just talk about the issue at hand ? It has nothing to do with Rabble, and even if it did insulting them wouldn't help your argument. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
noahbody Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 "Harper's agenda is disastrous for this country and for my generation," Brigette Marcelle says. "We have to stop him from wasting billions on fighter jets, military bases, and corporate tax cuts while cutting social programs and destroying the climate. Most people in this country know what we need are green jobs, better medicare, and a healthy environment for future generations." I didn't realize Harper could destroy the climate. That's impressive. Green jobs? Does she think if Jack was PM there would be an economy of green jobs? What social programs has Harper said he was going to cut? I'm sure she's against spending billions on fighter jets. At the same time, I would bet she fully supported Kyoto and sending billions out of the country while not helping the environment one iota. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandy MacNab Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Why don't we just talk about the issue at hand ? It has nothing to do with Rabble, and even if it did insulting them wouldn't help your argument. Those defending the ditsy broad have arses sucking slough-water. Basically there's nothing to talk about. Her dopey conduct was enough to win our argument, hands down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Those defending the ditsy broad have arses sucking slough-water. Basically there's nothing to talk about. Her dopey conduct was enough to win our argument, hands down. If there's nothing to talk about then why are you talking about it ? Your post isn't adding anything to the argument, and this quality thread is going downhill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Most of this post is pure unadulterated bullshit No, it's all true. I'm sure it's tough to read the news when your face is firmly planted up Harper's ass. But it's all out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 No, it's all true. I'm sure it's tough to read the news when your face is firmly planted up Harper's ass. But it's all out there. Still going down... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The vitriol against what this poor little innocent girl did is quite baffling Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RNG Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The vitriol against what this poor little innocent girl did is quite baffling Think about it. What would your opinion be if, I know this is stretching the bounds of credibility, that the NDP were in power and some page held up a "Stop Happy Jack" sign? You would go ballistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sir Bandelot Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Think about it. What would your opinion be if, I know this is stretching the bounds of credibility, that the NDP were in power and some page held up a "Stop Happy Jack" sign? You would go ballistic. I'd laugh. Specially if it said "Stop Taliban Jack" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 (edited) Why don't we just talk about the issue at hand ? It has nothing to do with Rabble, and even if it did insulting them wouldn't help your argument. Wait a minute Mike.. I understand what you're saying,however,The folks over at Rabble are famous for standing up for these types no matter what the reason is.... I got called a war mongerer a few months ago for daring to say that the NATO mission in Libya might actually stop Col. Khaddaffi from slaughtering alot of innocent people... I got called a "neo-con asshole" for daring to say that Anne Coulter (and Ezra Levant) had every right to say what they wanted to say no matter how objectionable...That's the basis of Free Speech! The point about Rabble is that there is a cadre on the left that feels it is almost "patriotic" to shut those they disagree with up...To champion those as "hero's" for acting,quite frankly,like morons... I'm no fan of Mr.Harper or Ms. Coulter,however,this little act of "defiance" is'nt patriotic,or helpful... It's just idiotic! Edited June 5, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Our political system is reliant on contributions/participaction from the unelected public. Regardless of age,color or race. This is an unwriten rule that we all have benifited from and has improved the rights and freedoms of all Canadians. In the last ten or so years many Canadians have become very innactive in participating in our democracy. And this reluctance to participate is probably the largest contributing factor in the current stagnation in our system. I do not blame the citizens of Canada.The blame soley lies on the shoulders of different levels of Canadian government for discouraging public protest and criminalizing the participants! Protesters should not be treated so harshly by the police or the justice system. We should all find something we believe in that is not being addressed and get out there and protest the in-action of government,get arrested and stand up in court before a judge and tell him/her that it is every Canadians responsibility to become involved in our democracy.And even state cases where this has actualy happened. Politicians do not have a monoploly on directing the future of Canada,only if you let them! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Gee...maybe you should run for office. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The point about Rabble is that there is a cadre on the left that feels it is almost "patriotic" to shut those they disagree with up...To champion those as "hero's" for acting,quite frankly,like morons... I would complain to them, not here. Calling them names isn't helpful here or there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The blame soley lies on the shoulders of different levels of Canadian government for discouraging public protest and criminalizing the participants! What has the Canadian government done to discourage public protest and how does discouraging protest cause Canadians to become inactive in our democracy ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The judging part is your business. The ascribing motives part is what I don't understand. "Justifiably draw conclusions" - does that mean you're justified to do it, or that the conclusions are accurate ? I would say "justifiably draw conclusions" means that I'm justified to do it, since that's what I said. I also said "I believe...." and "I think...." which I would think would make it clear that I'm stating what "I believe..." and what "I think...." If I believed it was fact, which it would have to be in order to be "accurate," I would have stated it as such. It was also the throne speech, which had the maximum visibility. What gave her "maximum visibility" was the media. You're looking at the circumstances, and working backwards to say "see - this shows that she was planning to minimize the impact on her" but you're adding a bunch of your own assumptions there. No, I'm not looking backwards. I'm calling it the way I see it. Seems to me you're adding your assumptions there as to how/why I feel the way I do. You're free to do it, but I think you're on shaky ground and I for one don't buy it based on what you've posted so far. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it, and frankly, the purpose of stating my opinion isn't to convince you. I don't think it's in doubt that she wanted media attention for her cause. No doubt at all. She not only wanted it, she made sure that she got it. "Those who don't care about her breech of trust" - that says a lot right there. How many are interested in employing someone who willfully breeches their trust ? I gave an example of a job offer she already received. But come on, we both know that there are many people in this world who will see things the way they want to see them. Those who champion her cause won't see it as a "breech of trust." They would if the other side did it, but not their side. We see that all the time. Excuses being made when it's a cause/political stance that's endorsed while the same kind of behavior from the other side is seen for what it is. I'm not a Canadian or a conservative, so I am seeing her behavior from a non-biased POV, and I see it as self-serving. One of the only lasting effects I think her "stunt" might have - other than for her personally - is that things may be more difficult for Pages in Canada from now on. Will they be granted the same trust/privileges that she was entrusted with? Or will they pay the price for her abuse of the position? And I agree that she seems very shrewd (your word) but I'm still not getting to the point where she calculates that this act will work for her own gain, or at least something that wouldn't hurt her future. I honestly, in thinking it over, don't think she gave it any thought one way or the other in regards to her future. I think she just wanted to take advantage of her position while she had the chance to get her message out there and get media coverage. I think I gave her too much credit in the intelligence department. I've read that she initially used her first and middle name rather than her first and last name because she didn't want her parents to know about it. First of all, if you don't want your parents to know about something, it says a lot right there. Secondly, how did she think her parents weren't going to find out about it when she is the one responsible for a press release - ie; she planned on it being in the media? Did she honestly think her parents were going to hear about it and think - 'gee....a Page with the same first and last name as our daughter's first and middle name and ironically she's also a Page too!' Doesn't make her come across as overly intelligent. That and the fact that it likely will have a lasting effect on future pages makes me believe that maybe she didn't think it through at all - or else she didn't care - which hardly makes her actions "brave." I have a real problem with the way this is being played out - the whole "bravery" "heroic" rhetoric, with her being given that commendation. It's totally undeserving, imo. Furthermore, the mention of the Arab spring just makes her sound as if she doesn't have a clue. Does she even realize how good she has it in Canada? - How foolish that makes her look? There are so many people actually committing themselves to doing something about the problems in this world, who actually are "brave," and this young girl is heaped with praise and attention for holding up a sign on the Senate floor, which she was privileged with access to. I believe she did more harm than any good - she certainly doesn't make liberals look good. Not obvious to me. She has cut herself off from being employed by anything but a handful of organizations that work against the establishment. It still sounds like an act of conscience to me. It's sounding more and more to me like an act that wasn't really thought through. I disagree that it will hurt her employment chances, though. I think it will heighten her chances of getting into an organization that she would like to be in. She's interested in the arts, too, and this type of publicity certainly doesn't hurt in that department. Furthermore, this will eventually all blow over and people will be saying, "Brigette who?" She got her 15 minutes of fame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Such a long post ! I would say "justifiably draw conclusions" means that I'm justified to do it, since that's what I said. I also said "I believe...." and "I think...." which I would think would make it clear that I'm stating what "I believe..." and what "I think...." If I believed it was fact, which it would have to be in order to be "accurate," I would have stated it as such. Ok. Well of course you're always allowed to give your opinion. No, I'm not looking backwards. I'm calling it the way I see it. Seems to me you're adding your assumptions there as to how/why I feel the way I do. Not looking backwards, working backwards. I don't think I have any assumptions as to how/why you feel the way you do. My point is that I don't understand how/why people feel so sure about a situation that they ascribe motives and character to people that they don't know. Those who champion her cause won't see it as a "breech of trust." They would if the other side did it, but not their side. Yes, but the number of people who can hire someone who openly breeched trust (which is a primary component of any job) is limited to organizations that stir the pot. Maybe a union or a non-governmental activist group would hire her, as you have pointed out but not government, or even any educational institution that was concerned about political visibility. I'm not a Canadian or a conservative, so I am seeing her behavior from a non-biased POV, and I see it as self-serving. And I don't understand why. It seems that you make a jump from the facts to making that judgement and I can't make that jump. I honestly, in thinking it over, don't think she gave it any thought one way or the other in regards to her future. I think she just wanted to take advantage of her position while she had the chance to get her message out there and get media coverage. That makes more sense to me, but it also puts her in the camp of naive idealists. It's self-serving in the sense that she is advancing her personal viewpoint and philosophy but that to me is a different thing than a calculated move to enrich oneself. I know you didn't make that assertion but some have and I think that it's important to differentiate. Furthermore, the mention of the Arab spring just makes her sound as if she doesn't have a clue. Does she even realize how good she has it in Canada? - How foolish that makes her look? I don't have any sense with how this looks to mainstream Canadians. I know plenty of people who paint Harper as a fascist-in-waiting, but having lived through Harris I don't get that. Many of the people who are so anti-Harper seem to be too young to have been around during the Common Sense Revolution in Ontario where I live. There are so many people actually committing themselves to doing something about the problems in this world, who actually are "brave," and this young girl is heaped with praise and attention for holding up a sign on the Senate floor, which she was privileged with access to. Praise and attention in the OP. It's sounding more and more to me like an act that wasn't really thought through. I disagree that it will hurt her employment chances, though. I think it will heighten her chances of getting into an organization that she would like to be in. She's interested in the arts, too, and this type of publicity certainly doesn't hurt in that department. Furthermore, this will eventually all blow over and people will be saying, "Brigette who?" She got her 15 minutes of fame. Working in the arts requires some degree of talent, not just the desire to cause a stir. I don't know what will become of her, but I'm glad that this kind of thing happens from time to time to remind us that dissent exists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 What has the Canadian government done to discourage public protest and how does discouraging protest cause Canadians to become inactive in our democracy ? Good question!Thank you for asking. The government has restricted where and when people can protest.Essentialy trying to "pen-in" protesters.And criminalizing protesters when they bring the protest out of the "designated" protest area. Aswell not encouraging public participaction in protesting is a passive way of discouraging change. There are other examples but I am limited by time to explore all the venues. Keep in mind that public protest is the only practical way the citizens of Canada can apply their input and/or opinion into the process of government decission making. Municipal governments do have public hearings and meetings to discuss local issues.Example would be re-zoning. And municipalities are usually more flexible or sympathetic to public protesting. This topic can be argued very well on both sides.Example is China. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 As a self identified Conservative supporter, I would not let DePape cook my dinner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 The vitriol against what this poor little innocent girl did is quite baffling Did she have white socks and ponny tails? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 Keep in mind that public protest is the only practical way the citizens of Canada can apply their input and/or opinion into the process of government decission making. So voting isn't part of it ? It's not practical ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted June 5, 2011 Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 I'd laugh. Specially if it said "Stop Taliban Jack" Laugh then and don't complain. Btw, Jack doesn't defend Taliban so much as Al-Quida members. He believes we need to give them more information about what our government is doing (will do) in Afghanistan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted June 5, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 5, 2011 What has the Canadian government done to discourage public protest and how does discouraging protest cause Canadians to become inactive in our democracy ? Let me discuss the second part of your question. It seems obvious to me that when you arrest protesters,confine them or even just pen them in like cattle,this would be enough to discourage the citizens from being active in our society. Some level of disruption must be achieved from any protest for it to have any potency! Increasing the severity of punishment in relation to the level of disruption is encouraged by the government and police. Excellent example would be the last Canadian G20 and the McGuinty government passing of special legislation to enhance this. Another way Canadians can be involved in amending legislation is through the legal system.And thats freekin expensive!I do not have to explain how that is discouraging! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.