eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 37 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: This is not a formal democracy, it is a Constitutional Monarchy, you're not actually entitled to prevent government secrecy, all you are entitled to do, is vote for a representative. If you don't like the results, you can vote for someone else. That's all you are entitled to, you won't get "in camera blah, blah, blah" from the judiciary. How typically condescending. I'm happy to say all you'll be entitled to is a blanket, food and water in a re-education camp surrounded by mosquitoes and run by Eskimo Commies. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: How typically condescending. I'm happy to say all you'll be entitled to is a blanket, food and water in a re-education camp surrounded by mosquitoes and run by Eskimo Commies. But I take what I want by force. I simply begin that process at market force. No reason to escalate beyond that threshold at this juncture, as Elizabeth Windsor is not imperiled at this juncture in my estimation.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 36 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: That isn't missing at all, the free press discuss that shit all the time, under their constitutionally protected right to free speech. Yes it is missing. The press will still be free to report whatever shit they want they'll just have to accept that the public will have better access to the assholes putting it out in the first place. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: Yes it is missing. The press will still be free to report whatever shit they want they'll just have to accept that the public will have better access to the assholes putting it out in the first place. The public has access to that already and a One World Government isn't going to give them any more access, quite the opposite. You falsely assume that they don't have that access, because they don't agree with you about what should be done about a lack of government transparency, and if they did have access, then they would wholeheartedly agree with you. But that simply isn't the case, you just wish that it was. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 21 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: How so? I voted for Justin Trudeau and I got exactly what I voted for. I voted for Doug Ford and got exactly what I voted for. Are we talking at cross purposes here? I was talking about the term "in camera" and I was talking to someone else. Or are you just talking about the trust thing.
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, bcsapper said: Are we talking at cross purposes here? I was talking about the term "in camera" and I was talking to someone else. Or are you just talking about the trust thing. I was quoting what you published to the internet, "in camera" is meaningless blather, thus I assumed that as being moot.
eyeball Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 28 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: There's something wrong with your comprehension, Canada is not a people's republic and never will be. Groovy. I could care less what the global government is so long as the politicians and senior-most bureaucrats running it do so under a public macroscope. I'm quite certain its just as annoying waiting for a bus to come on time in Bejing as it is in Vancouver. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: I was quoting what you published to the internet, "in camera" is meaningless blather, thus I assumed that as being moot. Saying you got exactly what you voted for is meaningless blather, and quite possibly dishonest, but as I don't know you that well, I'll retract the latter. In camera actually exists as a phrase meaning in private. Edited February 1, 2019 by bcsapper
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, eyeball said: Groovy. I could care less what the global government is so long as the politicians and senior-most bureaucrats running it do so under a public macroscope. I'm quite certain its just as annoying waiting for a bus to come on time in Bejing as it is in Vancouver. You have the public macroscope, it's called a free press, enjoy.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) 3 minutes ago, eyeball said: Groovy. I could care less what the global government is so long as the politicians and senior-most bureaucrats running it do so under a public macroscope. I'm quite certain its just as annoying waiting for a bus to come on time in Bejing as it is in Vancouver. The politicians and senior-most bureaucrats running the non-global governments of the world are doing so under public macroscope, it's called the free press, the public having access to a public macroscope to keep the government honest, that just doesn't result in the world that you think it does. Your theory is just wrong, history and current events show that quite clearly. Edited February 1, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Saying you got exactly what you voted for is also meaningless blather, and quite possibly dishonest, but as I don't know you that well, I'll retract the latter. No. Everything I asserted is in the dictionary. "In-camera" is not. Thus you and eyeball are spewing meaningless blather, while I am making a cogent point about how representative democracy works, in the Queen's English.
Guest Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: No. Everything I asserted is in the dictionary. "In-camera" is not. Thus you and eyeball are spewing meaningless blather, while I am making a cogent point about how representative democracy works, in the Queen's English. Actually I was just talking about the phrase. The meaningless blather I'll leave up to you.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 1, 2019 Report Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) It will be different this time though, because World Government hasn't been tried, so you don't know that it won't work, the billionth time is the charm, this time the politicians will be saints, I promise! That is obviously fallacious reasoning, on the face of it. No True Scotsman, anyone? Edited February 2, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Dougie93 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: Actually I was just talking about the phrase. The meaningless blather I'll leave up to you. It's not in the dictionary, thus it is blather, you can go f**k yourself for all I care. /shrugs
Guest Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: It's not in the dictionary, thus it is blather, you can go f**k yourself for all I care. /shrugs I know I can. That much is obvious from most of your posts.
Dougie93 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, bcsapper said: I know I can. That much is obvious from most of your posts. I don't recall posting any appeals to you, you posted some nonsensical blather by definition, I pointed it out, you posting blather and then insisting it be recognized as cogent is special pleading.
eyeball Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 35 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said: Would rather live in a hypothetical world where people only have bad intentions and produce desirable results than a world where people only have good intentions and produce undesirable results, I'd rather opt for a third path a world where people have good intentions and produce desirable results. Quote good intentions are hugely over-rated. The inevitability of rust is usually under-rated. Quote Virtue signaling... You guys just love dropping this phrase don't you? I never did get an answer to this btw...its really virtue that makes you right wingers projectile vomit isn't it? The phrase is actually signalling a visceral disgust for virtue itself. Talk about a race to the bottom. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: I don't recall posting any appeals to you, you posted some nonsensical blather by definition, I pointed it out, you posting blather and then insisting it be recognized as cogent is special pleading. No appeals, just permission. I respectfully decline, as it's not possible at my age. If you think the phrase "in camera" doesn't exist, that's fine.
Dougie93 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, eyeball said: You guys just love dropping this phrase don't you? I never did get an answer to this btw...its really virtue that makes you right wingers projectile vomit isn't it? The phrase is actually signalling a visceral disgust for virtue itself. Talk about a race to the bottom. Facta non verba. If we wish to be virtuous, we take virtuous actions, we don't need to be praised for it, thus there's no need to signal.
Dougie93 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 1 minute ago, bcsapper said: No appeals, just permission. I respectfully decline, as it's not possible at my age. If you think the phrase "in camera" doesn't exist, that's fine. I'm not asking your permission to do anything. "In camera" is apparently some sort of made up nonsense word, but whatever, just sayun.
Yzermandius19 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 5 minutes ago, eyeball said: I'd rather opt for a third path a world where people have good intentions and produce desirable results. The inevitability of rust is usually under-rated. You guys just love dropping this phrase don't you? I never did get an answer to this btw...its really virtue that makes you right wingers projectile vomit isn't it? The phrase is actually signalling a visceral disgust for virtue itself. Talk about a race to the bottom. You can't opt for any of those paths, there is no such world where everyone has good intentions that always produce desirable results, and wanting reality to conform to that doesn't bend reality to your will. The reason we love dropping the phrase virtue signaling is, virtue signalers think that everyone who has virtue has some pathological need to tell everyone how virtuous they are and how non-virtuous those who disagree with them are, but that is not the case. The virtue signalers pretending that their side of the argument has a monopoly on virtue, that's what the phrase is making fun of. Turning every political argument into a morality play where one side is backed by morality, and the reason the other side doesn't see things their way is they lack morality, that's some funny stuff, hence virtue signaling. Edited February 2, 2019 by Yzermandius19
Guest Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, Dougie93 said: I'm not asking your permission to do anything. "In camera" is apparently some sort of made up nonsense word, but whatever, just sayun. No, you gave me permission. Thank you, but as I said previously, the suppleness just isn't there anymore.
Dougie93 Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 Just now, bcsapper said: No, you gave me permission. Thank you, but as I said previously, the suppleness just isn't there anymore. I didn't grant permission nor deny permission, you published the phrase/word "in-camera" to the internet, I had already disregarded it as nonsense and moved on to your next assertion, you asked for a clarification, I gave you one.
eyeball Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: Facta non verba. If we wish to be virtuous, we take virtuous actions, we don't need to be praised for it, thus there's no need to signal. Big if there. Really really big if. I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Guest Posted February 2, 2019 Report Posted February 2, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said: I didn't grant permission nor deny permission, you published the phrase/word "in-camera" to the internet, I had already disregarded it as nonsense and moved on to your next assertion, you asked for a clarification, I gave you one. You did, and I didn't. You couldn't actually be more wrong if you made it your life's work. Edited February 2, 2019 by bcsapper
Recommended Posts