On the use of violence against those peacefully expressing views with which one disagrees.

[Dougie93]

43 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Ben Franklin knows, but the Eskimo Communists are of course oblivious.

The elite consensus will never admit defeat, they'll just keep doubling down.

The only way to be rid of them is to be rid of Quebec, their center of gravity which allows them to rule asymmetrically.

[Yzermandius19]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

The elite consensus will never admit defeat, they'll just keep doubling down.

The only way to be rid of them is to be rid of Quebec, their center of gravity which allows them to rule asymmetrically.

Clarity Act FTW. 

Vive le Quebec libre!

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Clarity Act FTW. 

Vive le Quebec libre!

In the meantime, nanny police state run amok, preaching about gun control for the masses, while the RCMP murders people with guns and gets away with it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mountie-manslaughter-trial-verdict-1.5251854

[Yzermandius19]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

In the meantime, nanny police state run amok, preaching about gun control for the masses, while the RCMP murders people with guns and gets away with it.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/mountie-manslaughter-trial-verdict-1.5251854

Typical nanny police state, above the law bullsh*t. F*ck the Mounties, and the horses they rode in on.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Typical nanny police state, above the law bullsh*t. F*ck the Mounties, and the horses they rode in on.

They're not very well trained for law enforcement,  Depot in Regina is more military than it is police.

Another archaic Canadian 19th century institution which has never been reformed.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Dougie93

[Yzermandius19]

5 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Another archaic Canadian 19th century institution which has never been reformed.

Archaic British Imperialist Zombie Project
*spits tobacco juice*

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, Yzermandius19 said:

British Imperialist Zombie Project
*spits tobacco juice*

Always be careful around the Mounties, worst cops in Canada, they are trigger happy like buck privates in the army.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

You can claim bollocks all you want, wanting to have sex free of consequences, including pregnancy, is not a proper justification for abortion.

The only justification for abortion is a woman's choice to have one.  Reasons for the choice are immaterial. 

It's like freedom of speech.  One doesn't have to agree with what's being said to support the right to say it.

[Yzermandius19]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

The only justification for abortion is a woman's choice to have one.  Reasons for the choice are immaterial. 

It's like freedom of speech.  One doesn't have to agree with what's being said to support the right to say it.

Abortion is not a constitutional right, free speech is, and there is good reason for that. Women can choose to have an abortion, even if the law says it's illegal in certain states, no one is taking the choice away from them, and no one is taking away choices other than abortion, which in the vast majority of cases are far superior options to abortion.

A lot of women choosing to have abortions do so for dubious reasons, that's just a fact. Some of them have great reasons, but they are a very small minority of abortions.

Edited August 20, 2019 by Yzermandius19

[Goddess]

12 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Fake news may be illegal in Canada, but it is 100% protected speech in the United States, absent libel or slander.

The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech - nowhere does it guarantee the right to exist without ever feeling offended.

If a cartoon of Muhammed or an op-ed about **whatever** makes someone feel "alienated" or "derided" or whatever else, that's unfortunate.  But frankly, there are few Westerners who do not feel personally targeted by some speech or another at one time or another.

Until Islam became a factor in the West, we all accepted this as part of the price of freedom.  Criticism of religion has been recognized as legitimate for a long time now.  And those who insist on putting a wall of protection around certain religions or issues are missing the big picture - freedom of speech should never take a backseat to personal sensitivities.

 

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Abortion is not a constitutional right, free speech is, and there is good reason for that. Women can choose to have an abortion, even if the law says it's illegal in certain states, no one is taking the choice away from them, and no one is taking away choices other than abortion, which in the vast majority of cases are far superior options to abortion.

A lot of women choosing to have abortions do so for dubious reasons, that's just a fact. Some of them have great reasons, but they are a very small minority of abortions.

I'm sure there's a right to something that would take in not being forced to undergo a pregnancy and all that goes with it.  I guess it depends on where one is.  Not El Salvador for sure.  Bleeding barbarians.

Still, as far as reasons go, I always figure that's their business.  I don't have to like it.  If someone who previously wanted the child now wants an abortion because they just found the dad in bed with their sister, or they found out it was going to be a girl, I don't get to revise my support.  I support the right to have the choice.

I support if for fathers too.  Figuratively speaking, of course.

Edited August 21, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

I'm pro choice in general, pro choice to own an assault rifle, pro choice to smoke marijuana, pro choice to have an abortion, pro choice to be a white supremacist if that's how you feel.

None the less I would back Yzermandias up that none of these choices require the federal government to impose them on the states, the federal government should stick to its knitting, lest it incite a revolution against itself trying to be dictator.

Women on the left simply do not see the danger, a federal government which can impose abortion could impose facism too, then the abortion will go as well.

The federal government is a blunt instrument capable of wielding tremendous force, states rights are the only thing which prevents it from becoming a tyranny of one sort or another.

In essence, all federated states face the same issue, which is the federal government overreaching beyond its role, diplomacy, foreign trade, national defense etcetera, to become the arbiter of all things, in the end, this is the thing which will bring those federations down.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[eyeball]

18 hours ago, Hal 9000 said:

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

 

18 hours ago, Yzermandius19 said:

Ben Franklin knows, but the Eskimo Communists are of course oblivious.

 

Speaking of oblivious...

Quote

 

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." That quote often comes up in the context of new technology and concerns about government surveillance. Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and the editor of Lawfare, tells NPR's Robert Siegel that it wasn't originally meant to mean what people think.

He was writing about a tax dispute between the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the family of the Penns, the proprietary family of the Pennsylvania colony who ruled it from afar. And the legislature was trying to tax the Penn family lands to pay for frontier defense during the French and Indian War. And the Penn family kept instructing the governor to veto. Franklin felt that this was a great affront to the ability of the legislature to govern. And so he actually meant purchase a little temporary safety very literally. The Penn family was trying to give a lump sum of money in exchange for the General Assembly's acknowledging that it did not have the authority to tax it.

 

...far from being a pro-privacy quotation, if anything, it's a pro-taxation and pro-defense spending quotation.

 

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Dougie93 said:

I'm pro choice in general, pro choice to own an assault rifle, pro choice to smoke marijuana, pro choice to have an abortion, pro choice to be a white supremacist if that's how you feel.

None the less I would back Yzermandias up that none of these choices require the federal government to impose them on the states, the federal government should stick to its knitting, lest it incite a revolution against itself trying to be dictator.

Women on the left simply do not see the danger, a federal government which can impose abortion could impose facism too, then the abortion will go as well.

The federal government is a blunt instrument capable of wielding tremendous force, states rights are the only thing which prevents it from becoming a tyranny of one sort or another.

In essence, all federated states face the same issue, which is the federal government overreaching beyond its role, diplomacy, foreign trade, national defense etcetera, to become the arbiter of all things, in the end, this is the thing which will bring those federations down.

There should only be one government for major issues.  States and provinces can see that potholes get filled, but that should be about it.

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There should only be one government for major issues.  States and provinces can see that potholes get filled, but that should be about it.

That's not federalism, so if you impose that you will ultimately bring the federation down, vive le Quebec libre.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

That's not federalism, so if you impose that you will ultimately bring the federation down, vive le Quebec libre.

They won't let me impose anything.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

They won't let me impose anything.

You are part of a large cohort of people who want to centralize power in massive uncontrollable governing structures, you are getting what you want, it's just not what you thought it would be.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

You are part of a large cohort of people who want to centralize power in massive uncontrollable governing structures, you are getting what you want, it's just not what you thought it would be.

I actually hadn't thought of it at all, really.  But if I did, I would want to centralize power in massive controllable governing structures. 

Yes, that sounds more like it.

[Dougie93]

3 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I actually hadn't thought of it at all, really.  But if I did, I would want to centralize power in massive controllable governing structures. 

Yes, that sounds more like it.

Power corrupts, the more centralized, the more powerful, the more powerful, the more corrupt.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Power corrupts, the more centralized, the more powerful, the more powerful, the more corrupt.

So any power would corrupt then.  You just spread it around.  Give everyone a chance to rip someone else off for their own gain.

I guess that's fair, and in keeping with the whole diversity thing we seem to have going on at the moment.

Edited August 21, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

7 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

So any power would corrupt then.  You just spread it around.  Give everyone a chance to rip someone else off for their own gain.

If people weren't putting their fate in the hands of these fundamentally corrupt and corrupting massive uncontrollable governing structures, they wouldn't feel the need to rip each other off.

It's divide and conquer, the massive central plan of the government is ultimately to pit people against each other in order to sustain the corrupt power structure.

Edited August 21, 2019 by Dougie93

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

I took down some clutter.  Please stay on topic and avoid making the discussions esoterically personal.

Thanks! 

 

On 8/19/2019 at 10:29 PM, OftenWrong said:

Any day now, Omni.

 

[Shady]

On 8/20/2019 at 7:14 PM, bcsapper said:

I'm sure there's a right to something that would take in not being forced to undergo a pregnancy and all that goes with it.

It's possible.  But as has already been stated, abortion is not a constitutional right.  You don't have a right to somebody elses labour and or money.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Shady said:

It's possible.  But as has already been stated, abortion is not a constitutional right.  You don't have a right to somebody elses labour and or money.

Ok, but nobody else has a right to their labour or money, so, choice then.

[OftenWrong]

On 8/20/2019 at 12:03 AM, Dougie93 said:

Your basic freedoms in Canada only exist if they comport with the ideology of the Liberal Party of Canada.

There is no blue in the Canadian flag.