Time to take on far-right terrorists

[Owly]

1 minute ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Why do you keep focusing on the words of politicians, instead of their actions again?

Actions like what, grabbing women inappropriately? Hugging kim jung un? Standing at a podium and saying he believes Vladimir Putin over his own intel. structure?

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Owly said:

Actions like what, grabbing women inappropriately? Hugging kim jung un? Standing at a podium and saying he believes Vladimir Putin over his own intel. structure?

These are all attacks on the words he uses, or how he says things, aside from hugging Kim Jong Un, which is a complaint with no actual merit.

Why do you never attack on him on policy, and only for throw away stuff like that? I'm starting to think it's because you don't have any good arguments against his policies, so you focus on his words and his tone, and how he greets dictators.

You are attacking Trump because you don't like his flash, while ignoring discussing anything of substance on which you disagree with his actions.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Owly]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

These are all attacks on the words he uses, or how he says things, aside from hugging Kim Jong Un, which is a complaint with no actual merit.

I'm sure he'll be very thankful to you for your feeble attempt to make excuses for him. And btw, do you have any understanding of who fat kim is or what he has done?

[Yzermandius19]

8 minutes ago, Owly said:

I'm sure he'll be very thankful to you for your feeble attempt to make excuses for him. And btw, do you have any understanding of who fat kim is or what he has done?

So? Trump is negotiating, and trying to butter him up. It won't work, negotiating for the sake of negotiation isn't going to make NK de-nuclearize, no matter how much he praises Kim. That's why I criticize Trump on his handling of NK, not because he's trying to butter up Kim during attempted negotiations, unlike some people who fixate on the buttering up as if that's some great crime, while ignoring the policy reasons to beef with Trump's strategy.

You need to learn to pick your battles with Trump, instead of grasping at every straw. Grasping at straws weakens your case, it doesn't help it, especially when your go to material is grasping at straws.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Owly]

6 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

So? Trump is negotiating, and trying to butter him up. It won't work, negotiating for the sake of negotiation isn't going to make NK de-nuclearize. and that's why I criticize him, not because he's trying to butter him up during attempted negotiations, unlike some people who fixate on the buttering up as if that's some great crime.

You need to learn to pick your battles with Trump, instead of grasping at every straw, grasping at straws weakens your case, it doesn't help it.

Seems like you completely missed my point, again. Trump claimed fat kim was de nuking while has actually been doing the opposite. That makes trump a failure. He has done so on many fronts. That's the reality outside of him saying "we fell in love" and other nonsense.

[Yzermandius19]

6 minutes ago, Owly said:

Seems like you completely missed my point, again. Trump claimed fat kim was de nuking while has actually been doing the opposite. That makes trump a failure. He has done so on many fronts. That's the reality outside of him saying "we fell in love" and other nonsense.

Seems like you missed the point again. Actions speak louder than words. The problem isn't that Trump is lying about NK de-nuclearizing, the problem is that negotiation isn't the path to de-nuclearization and Trump's strategy isn't the best way to de-nuclearize NK.

Focusing on lies and praising of dictators, that completely misses the point, what actually matters is policy, not the fluff that sells the policy.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

16 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

OMG THE SKY IS FALLING! 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_vests_movement

Only Trudeau and his lackeys think that the yellow vests are a dangerous right-wing terrorist movement. They actually know it’s not true they’re just selling that because Trudeau doesn’t want protests here  

 

All the white supremacists are there, in every city.

The 3% - the armed militia - now say they aren't racist and they aren't going to do security at white supremacist rallies anymore. 

Going straight or going underground?

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/new9wd/the-birth-of-canadas-armed-anti-islamic-patriot-group?utm_source=vicecanadafbca&utm_campaign=global

The yellow vests have created a national uniform. Everybody loves a uniform. 

The yellow uniforms vastly outnumbered by crowds of decent people who oppose hatred, Toronto police recently just kettled them down the subway stairs. 

Edited April 6, 2019 by jacee
Add link

[Yzermandius19]

You are missing the forest for the trees, Owly. Stop focusing on words designed to distract and mislead, and start focus on actual substantive policy, or your political analysis will suffer greatly.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

The new black panthers are a threat too. BLM is a threat. Antifa is a bigger than any of the groups we’ve mentioned. The number 1 threat is still islamic terrorism. 

I think Canadian law and security are handling Islamic terrorism in Canada.

But they haven't budgeted  to do the same quality of work in sniffing out and preventing far right terrorists. Not all far right groups are terrorists, but they ignite terrorists who tend to linger on the fringe. They know who they are. 

[Yzermandius19]

4 minutes ago, jacee said:

I think Canadian law and security are handling Islamic terrorism in Canada.

But they haven't budgeted  to do the same quality of work in sniffing out and preventing far right terrorists. Not all far right groups are terrorists, but they ignite terrorists who tend to linger on the fringe. They know who they are. 

Not all far right groups ignite terrorists who tend to linger on the fringe either. Using hate speech is not inciting violence, inciting violence is inciting violence. Some fringe terrorists being inspired by far right rhetoric that doesn't incite violence, doesn't need to be cracked down on.

[bush_cheney2004]

Any left wing fascists who are so dedicated to tracking "far right" groups and censoring their Charter Rights to freedom of expression can start here:

Soldiers of Odin Canada

https://www.facebook.com/OFFICIAL.SOO.1/

Please report back when you catch them engaged in "terrorism" so the RCMP can be notified

[jacee]

3 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Not all far right groups ignite terrorists who tend to linger on the fringe either. Using hate speech is not inciting violence, inciting violence is inciting violence. Some fringe terrorists being inspired by far right rhetoric that doesn't incite violence, doesn't need to be cracked down on.

Inciting hatred against groups of people is against the law because it may ignite violence against the targeted people.

[Yzermandius19]

10 minutes ago, jacee said:

Inciting hatred against groups of people is against the law because it may ignite violence against the targeted people.

Inciting hatred, should not be against the law, Canada wouldn't know what free speech was if it slapped them in the face.

It does not ignite violence against the targeted people, that's just the nonsense they use to sell it to free speech haters, like yourself.

Inciting violence can lead to violence against targeted people, hate speech does not, there is no need to make hate speech illegal. Free speech is not limited to what is considered polite conversation, it deliberately includes controversial topic and subjects that some people would classify as hateful.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

1 hour ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Inciting hatred, should not be against the law, Canada wouldn't know what free speech was if it slapped them in the face.

It does not ignite violence against the targeted people, that's just the nonsense they use to sell it to free speech haters, like yourself.

Inciting violence can lead to violence against targeted people, hate speech does not, there is no need to make hate speech illegal. Free speech is not limited to what is considered polite conversation, it deliberately includes controversial topic and subjects that some people would classify as hateful.

Inciting or promoting hatred against identifiable groups of people is a crime in Canada: 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • Wilful promotion of hatred

    • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Edited April 6, 2019 by jacee

[Yzermandius19]

39 minutes ago, jacee said:

Inciting or promoting hatred against identifiable groups of people is a crime in Canada: 

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-319.html

Public incitement of hatred

• 319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

  • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

  • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

  • Wilful promotion of hatred

    • (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

    • (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

• (a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it should be. Free Speech Haters and Canadian politicians might disagree, but they would disagree now wouldn't they?

Willful promotion of hatred should be 100% legal, if you trust the politicians and/or some kangaroo court human rights tribunal to decide what should and shouldn't be considered a "willful promotion of hatred", then I would say that faith is misplaced, and even if it wasn't, still shouldn't be illegal.

Free Speech > Anti-Hate Speech Laws. Just because something "is", doesn't mean it "ought" to be.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[jacee]

28 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Just because it is illegal, doesn't mean it should be. 
...
Willful promotion of hatred should be 100% legal, ...

... even if it wasn't, still shouldn't be illegal.

Free Speech > Anti-Hate Speech Laws

Now you know. 

 

[Yzermandius19]

1 minute ago, jacee said:

Now you know. 

 

I knew before.
/shrugs

You just assumed that I didn't, for some weird reason.

Edited April 6, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

1. Scheer has refused to make any commitment or promise of any kind on immigration, not publicly and not while running for leadership. I know. I wrote him when he was running and got no real answer. He does not strike me as the sort of guy who is going to turn over applecarts and bring out bold, controversial new initiatives,

2. and the Tory party has been as active in vote buying among immigrant groups as the Liiberals.

3. Bernier is capable of taking us out of the UN, I suppose, though he hasn't suggested he would. But smiley Andy? Not a chance in hell.

1. I agree.

2. There are lots of other reasons for immigration, such as economic orthodoxy says it's a good things, and large business influencers like banks and businesses that import workers support it.  The latter point is one that we haven't discussed in the past, I think.

3. That's a stupid idea no matter who likes it.  

 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, Argus said:

  Bernier is capable of taking us out of the UN, I suppose,  

https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/9269498-mad-at-max-bernier-s-people-s-party-of-canada-is-revolting-in-british-columbia/

"Maxime Bernier’s newly minted “smart populist” party may be crumbling in British Columbia amid allegations of racism, xenophobia and an infiltration of the radical far-right."

Thankfully, there are still Canadian conservatives who won't like their party become corrupted by the far-right, anti-UN frothers.

[Shady]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-story/9269498-mad-at-max-bernier-s-people-s-party-of-canada-is-revolting-in-british-columbia/

"Maxime Bernier’s newly minted “smart populist” party may be crumbling in British Columbia amid allegations of racism, xenophobia and an infiltration of the radical far-right."

Thankfully, there are still Canadian conservatives who won't like their party become corrupted by the far-right, anti-UN frothers.

What do you mean by anti-UN?

[bush_cheney2004]

Lots of UN members have rejected the UN migration pact, and many UN member nations have "far right" governments.

Left wing fascists should not count on the UN to save them.

[DogOnPorch]

10 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Lots of UN members have rejected the UN migration pact, and many UN member nations have "far right" governments.

Left wing fascists should not count on the UN to save them.

 

I can't imagine anybody wanting an outside power deciding who gets into your country. But, apparently, government's like ours think it's a great idea...and their 'post national' supporters do too. 

This will lead to real trouble...

[Shady]

17 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Lots of UN members have rejected the UN migration pact, and many UN member nations have "far right" governments.

Left wing fascists should not count on the UN to save them.

You’re right.  I guess believing that individual counties should determine their individual immigration needs/requirements is apparently “racist” now.

[DogOnPorch]

1 minute ago, Truth Detector said:

You’re right.  I guess believing that individual counties should determine their individual immigration needs/requirements is apparently “racist” now.

 

Being called a racist for not agreeing with the plots & plans of the political opposition is getting a tad thin. 

[scribblet]

Everything is 'racist' now, question immigration in any way means you are racist and now the Liberals are going to monitor us all for 'hate' speech - defined by them of course.

Remember, it it was not enough that U.N. control our populations but also demanded an end to ‘Negative Narratives’ on Mass Migration.    Really - how dare countries want to determine their own policies.