Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Troops in the streets, terrorists behind sheets, irrational fearmongering is irrational fearmongering. Mocking one while shrugging off the other just makes you look like a partisan boob. Which, well, you know. So what you're saying that all parties "fearmonger", you're just upset that the Conservatives are doing what the Liberals have done in the past. Ok.
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Whether it's iur streets or other people's streets. He's a warmongering fanatic who should be in the Hague along with all the other fanatics. LOL! Yep, he's started a whole zero wars, and responsible for a whole zero war crimes. But he belongs in the Hague!
BubberMiley Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 So what you're saying that all parties "fearmonger", you're just upset that the Conservatives are doing what the Liberals have done in the past. Ok. Better than still being upset about what the Liberals did in the past while completely disregarding the CPC doing it at taxpayer expense now. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Better than still being upset about what the Liberals did in the past while completely disregarding the CPC doing it at taxpayer expense now. How do you know it's at tax expense? Is it legal?
On Guard for Thee Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 We would be better off with the War Measures Act (now known as Emergencies Act). At least it requires all party oversight, is sunsetted, and provides compensation to those unfairly impugned by it. None of which exists in C 51.
Boges Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Posted March 11, 2015 We would be better off with the War Measures Act (now known as Emergencies Act). At least it requires all party oversight, is sunsetted, and provides compensation to those unfairly impugned by it. None of which exists in C 51. Not an over-reaction at all. Marshall Law > Increased surveillance on the Internet.
On Guard for Thee Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Not an over-reaction at all. Marshall Law > Increased surveillance on the Internet. If you think all C 51 amounts to is just a closer look at the internet, you need to take a closer look at the bill.
Boges Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) If you think all C 51 amounts to is just a closer look at the internet, you need to take a closer look at the bill. I'm pretty sure it doesn't go as far as the suspension of ALL civil rights. I'm also sure it doesn't look to restrict ALL immigration to Muslims like your fearless leader suggests. Edited March 11, 2015 by Boges
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 So what you're saying that all parties "fearmonger", you're just upset that the Conservatives are doing what the Liberals have done in the past. Ok. I'm not "upset." But, unlike you, I do think it's shitty no matter who does it.
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 I'm pretty sure it doesn't go as far as the suspension of ALL civil rights. I'm also sure it doesn't look to restrict ALL immigration to Muslims like your fearless leader suggests. Who ever suggested such a thing?
Boges Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Posted March 11, 2015 “So we should all shudder to hear the same rhetoric that led to a ‘none is too many’ immigration policy toward Jews in the ’30s and ’40s being used today, to raise fears against Muslims today,” he said. When has the CPC ever said anything remotely close to "none is too many" in relation to Muslims?
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 I'm not "upset." But, unlike you, I do think it's shitty no matter who does it. Right. But you just post about it when it's conservatives. I guess you keep it to yourself otherwise.
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) When has the CPC ever said anything remotely close to "none is too many" in relation to Muslims? You're focusing on the wrong part of the quote and thus, missing the point of the comparison. He's talking about the current xenophobic rhetoric coming out of the CPC such as Harper's "not how we do things here" or John Williamson's "whites/brown people" gaffe. The point is about how xenophobic language contributes to a culture of intolerance, not about actual immigration. It's not the best way to illustrate the point, sure, as it suggests a slippery slope, but in the broader context of the speech and it's themes, it makes sense. Edited March 11, 2015 by Black Dog
BubberMiley Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 How do you know it's at tax expense? Is it legal? It's sent from his constituency office. There is an allowance for those mailings. If you look, you will even see the "survey" can be sent back without postage. That means it's a House of Commons mailing. But keep going on about a stupid ad from a retired prime minister from 10 years ago while trying to find something---anything---to deflect from this equally idiotic stunt. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
eyeball Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 LOL! Yep, he's started a whole zero wars, and responsible for a whole zero war crimes. But he belongs in the Hague! He's a partner in crime, as complicit as any, whether you're in for a penny or a pound, whether it's a network of terror or a dictatorship - crime is crime.He deserves what Canada is more likely to get. A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Boges Posted March 11, 2015 Author Report Posted March 11, 2015 You're focusing on the wrong part of the quote and thus, missing the point of the comparison. He's talking about the current xenophobic rhetoric coming out of the CPC such as Harper's "not how we do things here" or John Williamson's "whites/brown people" gaffe. The point is about how xenophobic language contributes to a culture of intolerance, not about actual immigration. It's not the best way to illustrate the point, sure, as it suggests a slippery slope, but in the broader context of the speech and it's themes, it makes sense. But it's relating the issue of terrorism with immigration. It's Apples and Oranges. You're being a race-baiter if you accuse Harper of being Islamaphobic. In the 2011 election the CPC looked to ethnic communities to bolster their seat count. What he does oppose is the fundamentalist element of the religion that would plan to blow up a bomb next to the US Consulate like a man was arrested today for planning.
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 It's sent from his constituency office. There is an allowance for those mailings. So you're complaint is with the law then? Did you complain at all before Harper was PM, or just after? Is that when you found the practice to be outrageous?
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Right. But you just post about it when it's conservatives. I guess you keep it to yourself otherwise. Well, if the CPC is replaced as the party in power and the new party employs similar tactics, I'll be sure to register my objection. But I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be posting about here. 10 year old campaign blurbs? Of course, it should be noted that even if I were a hypocrite, that would do nothing to diminish your own rank hypocrisy and apparent lack of self-awareness.
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 But it's relating the issue of terrorism with immigration. It's Apples and Oranges. He's not talking about terrorism. You're being a race-baiter if you accuse Harper of being Islamaphobic. In the 2011 election the CPC looked to ethnic communities to bolster their seat count. I don't see why he can't dislike them and still want their votes. What he does oppose is the fundamentalist element of the religion that would plan to blow up a bomb next to the US Consulate like a man was arrested today for planning. And wardrobe choices.
BubberMiley Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 So you're complaint is with the law then? Did you complain at all before Harper was PM, or just after? Is that when you found the practice to be outrageous? No, did you read the survey? It states an either/or, you're with the CPC or you're with the terrorists poll question. I find this sort of speech to be at least equally ridiculous to the soldiers in the streets ad, maybe a little more so. It's more annoying because it is paid for out of the constituency allowance, which shouldn't be used for such ridiculous partisan purposes. Then I made fun of you because you would blindly defend this because you think he's on Team Shady, and then still go on about the soldiers in the street ad 10 years later. Understand now? "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 Well, if the CPC is replaced as the party in power and the new party employs similar tactics, I'll be sure to register my objection. But I'm not sure what exactly I'm supposed to be posting about here. 10 year old campaign blurbs? Of course, it should be noted that even if I were a hypocrite, that would do nothing to diminish your own rank hypocrisy and apparent lack of self-awareness. I see, so you didn't say anything in 2006 when you were posting in the forum when the Liberals were fearmongering. The secret agenda and troops in the streets seemed to be ok with you. However, now that the conservatives are in power, the fearmongering really upsets you. Got it. Par for the course.
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 No, did you read the survey? It states an either/or, you're with the CPC or you're with the terrorists poll question. I find this sort of speech to be at least equally ridiculous to the soldiers in the streets ad, maybe a little more so. It's more annoying because it is paid for out of the constituency allowance, which shouldn't be used for such ridiculous partisan purposes. Then I made fun of you because you would blindly defend this because you think he's on Team Shady, and then still go on about the soldiers in the street ad 10 years later. Understand now? It's not a survey, it's a fundraiser sent out to conservative voters that have signed up. I get it though. When conservatives fearmonger, it's outrageous, when another party does it, you're fine with it. Par for the course.
BubberMiley Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 It's not a survey, it's a fundraiser sent out to conservative voters that have signed up. I get it though. When conservatives fearmonger, it's outrageous, when another party does it, you're fine with it. Par for the course. No, it was a survey sent to all constituents. I said the Liberal ad was outrageous, so what are you talking about? Now you're just making up stuff again because you're embarrassed you feel obligated to defend this crap. "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Shady Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 No, it was a survey sent to all constituents. I said the Liberal ad was outrageous, so what are you talking about? Now you're just making up stuff again because you're embarrassed you feel obligated to defend this crap. I haven't received it. Nobody I know has received it. I'm not defending it, I just wish you applied the same standard all the time instead of picking and choosing.
Black Dog Posted March 11, 2015 Report Posted March 11, 2015 I see, so you didn't say anything in 2006 when you were posting in the forum when the Liberals were fearmongering. The secret agenda and troops in the streets seemed to be ok with you. However, now that the conservatives are in power, the fearmongering really upsets you. Got it. Par for the course. I dunno if I did. It was 10 years ago after all. Of course another difference is the 2006 "troops in the streets" line was so self-evidently ridiculous no one took it seriously at all. But again, I'm not sure why you think my alleged hypocrisy excuses your obvious hypocrisy.
Recommended Posts