Trudeau test drives his smear campaign

[GostHacked]

On 4/15/2019 at 4:03 AM, DogOnPorch said:

 

Sharia applies to all living in a Sharia controlled society...Muslim and Non-Muslim alike.

Which Canada is not, and never will be.

[DogOnPorch]

3 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Which Canada is not, and never will be.

 

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

https://quran.com/8/39

You're free to think you're bigger than Islam.

[GostHacked]

Just now, DogOnPorch said:

 

And fight them until there is no fitnah and [until] the religion, all of it, is for Allah . And if they cease - then indeed, Allah is Seeing of what they do.

https://quran.com/8/39

You're free to think you're bigger than Islam.

Might as well lay down too then Doggy, you are done as well.

[DogOnPorch]

17 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Might as well lay down too then Doggy, you are done as well.

 

Islam expects you to lie down and submit. Islam means submission. If you do not submit, you're causing fitnah. Fitnah = trouble & strife...that's worse than any other crime in the Sharia. Including murder...there is no thou shalt not kill in the Quran.

While you do not take Islam's goals seriously...much like many believed Hitler wouldn't actually go to war...Islam takes itself very seriously. Seriously enough to take their beliefs to the mattresses. 

Anyways...all the major political parties love Islam. So expect more Islam...not less. I view it much like having Christianity forced down the ol' throat...but, unlike Christianity...Islam actually hates the Unbeliever...rather than Christianity's 'love thy neighbour'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Wala'_Wal_Bara'

...literally "loyalty and disavowal", which signifies loving and hating for the sake of Allah.

Sure...not all Muslims are going to act on al-wala' wal bara'...but a significant percentage of Muslims will. There is no way to tell which Muslims will take Allah's command to heart...but make no mistake...it's a command.

Edited April 16, 2019 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

18 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Islam expects you to lie down and submit. Islam means submission. If you do not submit, you're causing fitnah. Fitnah = trouble & strife...that's worse than any other crime in the Sharia. Including murder...there is no thou shalt not kill in the Quran.

While you do not take Islam's goals seriously...much like many believed Hitler wouldn't actually go to war...Islam takes itself very seriously. Seriously enough to take their beliefs to the mattresses. 

Anyways...all the major political parties love Islam. So expect more Islam...not less. I view it much like having Christianity forced down the ol' throat...but, unlike Christianity...Islam actually hates the Unbeliever...rather than Christianity's 'love thy neighbour'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Wala'_Wal_Bara'

...literally "loyalty and disavowal", which signifies loving and hating for the sake of Allah.

Sure...not all Muslims are going to act on al-wala' wal bara'...but a significant percentage of Muslims will. There is no way to tell which Muslims will take Allah's command to heart...but make no mistake...it's a command.

Alright, so what is the solution to this problem?

[DogOnPorch]

6 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Alright, so what is the solution to this problem?

 

What problem? You want this to happen.

[GostHacked]

25 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

What problem? You want this to happen.

So there is no problem? Your stances seem to conflict one another.  I'll let you figure that out before I respond again.

[Argus]

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. Yes that makes sense as long as you ignore the terrorism part, which you like to do.

Are you in therapy? Because I would heartily recommend it. It's clear that the single attack on Muslims has left you so traumatized you're incapable of rational thought.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

2. Except when it comes to denying Muslims the right to worship and to pursue freedom in Canada it seems.

Bullshit. No one has proposed any such thing. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. The real snowflakes are the ones who recoil in offense when they are called racist... for saying racist things.

And the extremists are people who want to take away everyone's freedoms - for our own good.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

4. True.  6 dead Muslims in a mosque is less of a concern than WW2.

Four people were shot to death yesterday in Penticton. Are the tears pouring down your face?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

5. That's wrong.

I don't think so. There have been some really intelligent commentators who have dissected what has happened to the Left in the last decade, and who say that they have made diversity and anti-racism into their religion. And like all religions, extremists and zealots like to push that on others. It seems to me that what happened in Quebec two years ago and in New Zealand last month weren't simply murders to you, they were blasphemy, and  now you want to launch an inquisition to weed out all heretics and those of impure thought and burn them at the stake.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

6. So-called Islamist terror and so-called alt-right terror are both fuelled by hate mongers.  I am against all of this - hateful immams and hateful blonde bimbos who work for The Rebel.  You are most concerned about the freedom of expression used to compel mentally ill people to kill Muslims.

There are thousands of Islamic terrorism attacks every year, NONE of which have caused you any noticeable grief.  But a couple of isolated attacks from nut jobs has you ready to destroy Canada's entire cultural heritage of western liberalism in despair that it might happen again. BTW, I noticed no such concern from you after the murderous attack on the Pittsburgh Synagogue six months ago. Not a word of bother or worry. Why would that be? He was an alt-right psycho too. But you never launched into a wild campaign of froth-at-the mouth demands for justice against white supremacists.

I think it's because to the Left, Jews are not a 'protected group' and thus not part of your religious mandate. You don't get much bothered when they or Christians are murdered. It's only when someone from one of the identity groups your religion worships is attacked that you go out of your mind and lose the ability to think rationally.

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

7. You can stop hate-mongering.

But you can't stop hate. You can't stop racism. You can't stop people from becoming outraged at what they read in the newspapers or see on TV. I guess that's your next mission, right? Stop all coverage of things which might get people upset against any of your protected identity groups?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

The reason why the government needs to do it is because people like you are so casual and are irresponsible and neglectful of your civic duties

My civic duties? You mean to stand up for what I believe in, including freedom of speech against those who attack it? Isn't that my civic duty?

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

to speak out.  You are a bad citizen.

You're a short-sighted fool who loses sight of big pictures because you've become a narrow minded religious fanatic on the subject of race and identity. 

3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

8.  No - you clearly are because you want to ensure that far-right terrorists continue to murder innocent people.

First, I don't believe for one moment that abandoning freedom of speech is going to stop terrorism. Second, even if I thought it would, I would still oppose you and your inquisition.

[Argus]

 

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  - Benjamin Franklin

[Argus]

1 hour ago, jacee said:

All out against PEGIDA, May 5, Toronto:

Pegida are not white supremacists. They have non-white members, esp Indians (Hindus). They are concerned with the growth of Islam in Canada.

This attempt by the far Left to equate any and all opposition to Islam with white supremacy is one of the many reasons why they are dismissed as both intellectually and morally bankrupt.

Edited April 16, 2019 by Argus

[Argus]

I think at this point we can stop calling the CBC government owned media and start to reasonably use the term 'government controlled' media. They've been pushing this white supremacy message in concert with the Liberal party ever since the latter unveiled their re-election strategy of pinning the label on conservatives. Every day we see fresh stories about white supremacy by anguished 'journalists' who always find a way to pin that together with Conservatives. Though I have to admit Neil MacDonald goes further than most. The CBC has become little more than a propaganda organ for the Liberal party and it has to go. If the Conservatives win the next election they need to privatize them.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/why-is-conservative-politics-such-a-natural-home-for-white-supremacists-neil-macdonald/ar-BBVZb3P?li=AAggXBV&ocid=DELLDHP17

Meanwhile, Max Bernier had a point when he compared Trudeau's determination to avoid giving offense to Sikhs by removing references to Sikh extremism in an official government report even as he and his party harp on 'white supremacy' and the danger it poses.

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/maxime-bernier-says-trudeaus-warning-against-white-supremacy-is-ethnic-attack/ar-BBVYg91?ocid=DELLDHP17

[DogOnPorch]

1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

So there is no problem? Your stances seem to conflict one another.  I'll let you figure that out before I respond again.

 

Don't blame me that you've no clue as to Islam's mandate other than it pisses DogOnPorch off.

[GostHacked]

4 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

Don't blame me that you've no clue as to Islam's mandate other than it pisses DogOnPorch off.

Oh we know it pisses you off.  Each member here can easily see that. But the question remains,  'what to do about it' ?

[bush_cheney2004]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

I think at this point we can stop calling the CBC government owned media and start to reasonably use the term 'government controlled' media. They've been pushing this white supremacy message in concert with the Liberal party ever since the latter unveiled their re-election strategy of pinning the label on conservatives.

 

Yep...been saying so for years....the CBC is funded and controlled by the state (Canada).   Welcome aboard !

Edited April 16, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

29 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

Oh we know it pisses you off.  Each member here can easily see that. But the question remains,  'what to do about it' ?

 

You're free to do as you like about it.

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

You're free to do as you like about it.

And you are free to do nothing about it.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."  - Benjamin Franklin

"Why don't I get to wear my hand grenades hanging on the outside of my flak jacket when I go to the cross burning ?" - Any Alt-Right Idiot

[DogOnPorch]

Ben Franklin = alt-Right idiot.

...and the insanity continues.

[Michael Hardner]

4 hours ago, Argus said:

Are you in therapy? Because I would heartily recommend it. It's clear that the single attack on Muslims has left you so traumatized you're incapable of rational thought.

1. Bullshit. No one has proposed any such thing. 

2. And the extremists are people who want to take away everyone's freedoms - for our own good.

3. Four people were shot to death yesterday in Penticton. Are the tears pouring down your face?

4. It seems to me that what happened in Quebec two years ago and in New Zealand last month weren't simply murders to you, they were blasphemy, and  now you want to launch an inquisition to weed out all heretics and those of impure thought and burn them at the stake.

5. There are thousands of Islamic terrorism attacks every year, NONE of which have caused you any noticeable grief. 

6. But a couple of isolated attacks from nut jobs has you ready to destroy Canada's entire cultural heritage of western liberalism in despair that it might happen again.

7. BTW, I noticed no such concern from you after the murderous attack on the Pittsburgh Synagogue six months ago. Not a word of bother or worry. Why would that be?

8. He was an alt-right psycho too. But you never launched into a wild campaign of froth-at-the mouth demands for justice against white supremacists.

9. I think it's because to the Left, Jews are not a 'protected group' and thus not part of your religious mandate.

10. You don't get much bothered when they or Christians are murdered.  

11. But you can't stop hate. You can't stop racism. You can't stop people from becoming outraged at what they read in the newspapers or see on TV. I guess that's your next mission, right? Stop all coverage of things which might get people upset against any of your protected identity groups?

12. My civic duties? You mean to stand up for what I believe in, including freedom of speech against those who attack it? Isn't that my civic duty?

13.  You're a short-sighted fool who loses sight of big pictures because you've become a narrow minded religious fanatic on the subject of race and identity. 

14. First, I don't believe for one moment that abandoning freedom of speech is going to stop terrorism. Second, even if I thought it would, I would still oppose you and your inquisition.

1. When you make an environment that is unsafe for a group you have restricted their freedom.  Blacks were ostensibly "free" prior to 1964 in the southern US but they weren't.

2. No - freedoms are always balanced.  You never have absolute freedom.

3. I'm sad for them but I rarely cry.  If there is something the collective can do to reduce misery then I'm all for it.

4. They weren't "simply murders", no.  You seem to have now discovered an idea that denying the existence of hate crime is a good idea.

5. Please don't "what about" me on this.  I have stated that terrorism is of a similar scale from alt-right idiots as well as so-called Islamists.  We have taken steps to reduce the threat of terror including watch lists and unprecedented surveillance - which I have supported.  I think it's quite reasonable to take steps to prevent an increase of alt-right terrorism.  

6.The threat from both aforementioned groups is primarily from "nut jobs" who are egged on.  Would you not prevent an Imam from demonizing groups ?  I think we know the answer.

7. Please don't try to imply I'm anti-semitic.  I have indeed posted on this, saying it's the same threat as the one against Muslims, ie. it's the same root causes.

8. No wild campaign, just a reasonable request to smother those messages of hate where they occur.  Normally, one would expect them to get shouted down in the marketplace of ideas and that's why normally people like me don't favour censorship.  But they're not getting shouted down - you're telling people that they should be heard.

9. Hogwash.  Jews are the most targeted group, historically and anti-semitism is being spread by these same groups.

10. Lies.  If you were with me when I got the news of Pittsburgh you would know how offensive you are being here.

11. You really enjoy putting views on me that I don't have.

12. It also means to speak out against bad ideas.  

13. The religious idea was dreamt up by you in your own post, and then you use it as a basis for ad-hominem.  Very odd.  

14. What a backwards way to look at it.  Why not just state that hate speech doesn't incite racism and violence ?  It's false but that's what you're saying effectively.   Of course, history shows you are completely wrong.

 

 

 

[Michael Hardner]

My point on the Franklin quote is that it utterly ignores lots of examples of restrictions on freedom, which are there to promote safety.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

My point on the Franklin quote is that it utterly ignores lots of examples of restrictions on freedom, which are there to promote safety.  

 

As previously presented, the B. Franklin quote is often taken out of context and has no application in this instance.   The quote actually defends the authority of an elected legislature, which is not the opposite.    You have it backwards in this case.

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/02/390245038/ben-franklins-famous-liberty-safety-quote-lost-its-context-in-21st-century

 

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Yep...been saying so for years....the CBC is funded and controlled by the state (Canada).

Which is funded and controlled by the citizens of Canada - like every crown corporation.

What you've actually been saying for years is that the state of Canada controls the news which of course is ridiculous and hilariously so.

[scribblet]

The CBC shills for the Liberals, with millions of our dollars, we (Canadians) have no control over it, but the PMO (Telford) has admitted they can call on the media anytime for favourable op-eds.

Liberals and the Fake Feminist are reckless unethical charlatans with their race baiting, fear mongering and denigrating millions Canadians, which seems to be their only election platform.  Now they blame social media for allowing 'open discussion' as they continue pushing the alt-Right tag with their ultra Left Wing Propaganda Machine !

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Which is funded and controlled by the citizens of Canada - like every crown corporation.

 

Thank you for confirming my assertion made all these years.    I was never in doubt.

[eyeball]

4 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Thank you for confirming my assertion made all these years.    I was never in doubt.

The fact the state funds and controls crown corporations was never in doubt.  The notion that the state controls the news however....Thanks for keeping the shits and giggles coming.