Jump to content

Is Canada becoming a Communist state?


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

These allegations are a joke.  “Exposed himself” as a student in 1989?   This is actually what constitutes a complaint that can destroy an esteemed career.  What a sad state of affairs.  The military is a shadow of its former self.  Another victim of the inquisition.  
https://apple.news/AZQfNlvz1SyyES4dAnTByEw

just desserts for the cretinous Canadian officer class

you can't even get promoted in the CF without being a shameless crony to power

let them burn in a fire of their own making

 

Edited by Dougie93
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Suppose your family used to have a plot of land and it was taken from you illegally several generations ago.  When your family had it, it was forested, had a lake, and had some mineral deposits.  There was game in the forest and fish in the lake.  The people who stole it from them cut down the forest, mined out the minerals, and dumped all the tailings into the lake.  Now there is no lumber, there are no minerals, there is no game, there are no fish, the land is polluted and the lake is toxic.  Suppose you proved, in a Canadian court of law, the truth of all of this.  In theory, you could sue for the value of the land, the value of the lumber, the value of the minerals, the value of the game, the value of the fish, and the cost of the environmental cleanup.  

Do you have an example of this exact thing? I've never heard of such a place.

Also, don't forget that the FN people were elevated from the stone age to the space age in that period of time. Life for them wasn't as beautiful as you're imagining it pre-1492. Would you like to try to survive year round by cold lake with just wood to burn and some furs? 

They'd have had war and suffering even if their continent somehow remained hidden, like Wakanda. They'd have their own wars and slavery going on right now. Luddite Nirvana would not exist GL.

Your version of history sounds a lot like: "Everything should have been perfect for everyone, but it wasn't. We just made everything way worse in every way for every single human everywhere! Canada is awful!" That's not reality. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

You’re making a lot of assumptions, such as that there was one people continuously occupying said lands and using it as property, which in most cases simply isn’t true.  For example the Ottawas pushed out the Indigenous peoples of parts of southern Ontario.  Six Nations pushed out the Hurons, etc.  The very notion of property didn’t exist in much of pre-contact Canada.  The hunter-gatherer and fishing tribes such as the Algonquin were on the move.  Six Nations set up temporary farming settlements that were abandoned once the land’s nutrients were depleted.  Now we have grandfathered in free land (reserves) for which the residents receive health care and education at taxpayer expense.  They also receive free higher education.  Yet many Indigenous don’t want to abandon the Indian Act or have private title to their property, which would allow them to sell it, make money from the sale, and use it for whatever they want.  It’s a strange form of two-tier citizenship that requires outside help for reserve infrastructure.  Some reserves are successful at using their resources and functioning more independently.  Some aren’t economically viable, which leads to all sorts of social problems for the residents.  It’s a broken system that should never have been implemented.

Yet when Sir John A said that money shouldn’t be thrown at Indigenous to provide food and shelter because of the moral hazard of dependency it would create,  this is referenced as genocidal colonialism, much like residential schools, which were the first and only public education available to people from remote reserves.  It’s complicated but your argument is clearly the victim narrative used to sell the idea of reparations, including making people who immigrated to Canada long after colonization and their descendants (in other words most taxpaying Canadians alive today) foot the bill to pay money to people who already have free land and pay little tax.  What about the land that belonged to the Loyalists who fled the US during the American Revolution?   Can their great great great grandchildren reclaim land left behind in the US?   Can the Brits return New France to France?  Last I checked Quebeckers are charting their own course and can leave Canada at any time.  Indigenous can live with the same rights and freedoms as non-Indigenous, including the joy of paying income and land taxes or they can enjoy the freebies of Indigenous status or they can do both.  Nunavut is a self-governed Indigenous territory.  Who is taking what from whom?

People can argue that territories belong to them based on claims of continuous ancestral occupation without treaty, but they have to prove it in court.  Don’t worry, the courts are stacked with bleeding heart liberals, so taxpayers will fork over more money.

 

Thanks for your post, it reads as though you made it in good faith and I respect that.  This is a tough issue to talk about because there are lots of commonly accepted "facts" which are actually false, and a lot of the truth has been suppressed.  Sometimes reasonable adults end up shouting their "facts" at each other and nothing really gets discussed. 

You are correct that different groups of people abused and dispersed each other before Canada's arrival.  That does not change the simple fact that Canada broke its own laws by acquiring and keeping much of its land.  Similarly, Canada instituting reserves does not change the fact that Canada broke its own laws.  The argument I'm making is not "Canada did morally bad things so now they should have to pay money to help the less fortunate."  The argument is "Canada is a convicted criminal entity that has never faced justice for the crimes it chose to commit and chooses to perpetuate."  The only laws I am considering are Canada's.

There are many Canadians who believe the myth of "free education" for first nations folks, but it is more complicated.  For instance, all on-reserve schools are federally funded, and long story short, they are funded around 30% less per student than off-reserve schools are.  Indigenous programs spending increases were capped at 2% in the 90s.  Given that indigenous populations have increased by 42.5% since 2006, a great many of their programs are chronically underfunded.  This means that their schools are actually getting less funding per student every year.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/first-nations-schools-are-chronically-underfunded
Each band only gets a certain amount of funding for post-secondary grants, and when that money is gone, it's gone.  They are often unable to fund everyone who wants to attend university.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/debunking-the-myth-that-all-first-nations-people-receive-free-post-secondary-education-1.3414183
There are lots of reasonable, well-intentioned adults who believe that all natives get free tuition.  This belief is false.  Haha while living in Yellowknife I met several adults who sincerely believed that all natives get a brand new truck every two years from the taxpayer!  At the time I was a child and I found their sincerity convincing, now I am old enough to do my own research, although I can't help but chuckle at the outlandishness of that particular claim.  I mean, let's assume half of native folks are too young to drive - that is ~800,000 adults, so 400,000 trucks per year, google says the average truck in Canada is 37,345, so Canada would be spending a bit under 15 billion dollars per year on new trucks!  SMH

You are also correct that replacing the Indian Act is very contentious.  The reasons are very complicated - I haven't put the work in to understand why.  This post is going to be super long as it is so I'll just skate past this particular minefield for now.

You are definitely correct with the "strange sort of two-tier citizenship," and you are not the first to point that out.  Keep in mind that the Indian Act was imposed by Canada, not negotiated freely.  There have been lots of attempts to remove, replace, or amend it, and some of the amendments have succeeded but that's it.  Again, super complicated and I haven't put in the work to understand all the history, but I'm pretty sure that the actions of both sides would make sense to someone who had put that work in.  

I personally don't think that McDonald's refusal to fund generous welfare programs is what made Canada's treatment of indigenous folks a genocide - it was more about his efforts to exterminate their identity as a people, which is, admittedly, not what the word "genocide" actually means.  My read on that situation is that the word "genocide" is being stretched from its intended meaning of "attempt to exterminate a people" to include a new meaning of "attempt to exterminate the identity of a people."  From what I understand, the people who authored the Truth & Reconciliation report were well aware that a report just like it gets made every decade or two and then ignored, and they wanted this one to be impossible to ignore, so they chose a very inflammatory term, hoping Canada wouldn't ignore it again.  I don't really approve, personally - I think words have specific meanings, and language becomes much less useful when those meanings are lost.  That said, I understand that the problem of Canadian ignorance and apathy is a real one, and I don't have a better solution.  I don't agree with what they did, but I at least understand why they did it.

At any rate, the Canadian government deployed militarized police officers (the RCMP) to take children from their parents and deliver them to residential schools, and if the children escaped, the RCMP were tasked with tracking them down and returning them.  This went on for more than a hundred years.  However, any potential compensation that may or may not be owed to native folks for this would be a moral argument, and not a legal one, because it was legal in Canada for the RCMP to kidnap children at gunpoint and take them away, if they were native.  By contrast, it was illegal in Canada to gain sovereignty over native lands using any means except treaties negotiated through the Crown.

I prefer to avoid the term "reperations," because it is already used to describe what American black folks are trying to get from the U.S. government.  It is also a moral argument, not a legal one - to the best of my knowledge, America did not need to break its own laws in order to institute and maintain slavery.  Canada's theft of unceded territory is a legal argument.  It has gone to the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.  Canada broke its own laws by acquiring unceded territory, it broke its own laws by keeping that territory, it broke its own laws by harvesting resources on that territory, and it continues to break those laws by refusing to give that territory back. 

Whatever happened to the Loyalists in America is between them and the American government.  If they have a legal argument to make, they should make it.  It has nothing at all to do with natives or with Canada's criminal actions.  If France has a legal argument to make for New France, they should make it.  Other countries crimes have no bearing on Canada's.

People have proven in court that Canada stole unceded land.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/delgamuukw-court-ruling-significance-1.5461763
"The First Nations appealed and eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which found Aboriginal title could not be extinguished, confirmed that oral testimony is a legitimate form of evidence, and stated that Aboriginal title rights include not only land, but the right to extract resources from the land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Nation_v_British_Columbia_(Minister_of_Forests)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot'in_Nation_v_British_Columbia
There are many, many more.  I didn't read these because I've already done a couple hours of research while writing this post and my brain is getting tired.  Basically, you don't need to trust my word, or anyone else's - the truth is out there.  Problem is the truth is so damn complicated, and there are so many nice, profitable lies, oversimplifications, and half-truths.  

Anyways, hope this made sense okay.  Thanks for reading!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

That’s unrealistic wishful thinking.  When the shit hits the fan and a homeland is being invaded, biological truth takes over: Women and children are protected in the safest part of the realm as the men (and some rare female Amazons) hack each other to death.  Yes a certain amount of warfare is conducted remotely from the sky in modern warfare, but at some point the troops must invade or hold the fort.  No quarter.

Take a good look at this picture! Now, tell me, WHERE is "the safest part of the realm" while the men (he-men like you I presume) hack each other to death! 

d7c77km-59197760-9b9e-4291-84d8-732315c6

And fwiw, until we started putting together the barbaric "civilizations" like we have today, no human communities were fighting each other unless there was some calamity causing general food scarcities. 

Today, war and arming for war are profitable businesses, and cause death and destruction just to advance the interests and goals of ruling imperialists and their financial backers! Without empires, we should need no psychopath murderers running around hacking each other to death for the benefit of empire-building! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Well much as I love Socrates, Plato’s Republic is a bit of a dictatorship.  Our democratic system is better, though it’s sliding perilously close to collectivization and redistribution of wealth based on race (e. g. “reparations” to people of colour and Indigenous people, mostly from people who have no relationship to slave owners or “colonizers”) as well as the poll tax on existence misleadingly referred to as carbon tax.  Green Marxists have infiltrated the governments of liberal democracies and are implementing fascism in the name of science and human progress.  It’s actually theft and the trampling of human freedom.  The naive are rushing to implement the program to “save the planet” and be equitable.  It’s anti-equality and anti-human.   

By my own interpretation of political ideology, I just wish 'Green Marxists' were infiltrating our governments, and putting an end to growth-at-all-costs capitalism, which only benefits the rich, while the rest of us tread water, trying to hold on to what we already have!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/14/2021 at 7:27 PM, GrittyLeftist said:

I completely understand being frustrated by the covid situation, I am too.  The government actually paid us for months to stay home, but a few of us weren't willing to do that.  The government asked us not to travel internationally, and a few of us weren't willing to make that sacrifice.  Then the government put in insufficient measures to protect us from each other, and some of us weren't willing to follow them.  Now we are here.  This problem is not caused by the government, it is caused by citizens who won't take responsibility for their beliefs and their actions.  

How have we reached a point where grown adults think their right to go get a haircut is more important than someone else's right to not die of the plague?  How have we reached a point where the rest of us will just sit there and watch superspreaders ruin our economy and needlessly increase the death count?  Where have all the grown-ups gone?  I'm 40, barely old enough to remember when there were adults who talked about their responsibilities.  Now all I hear are grown children demanding their rights.

FWIW, if the government actually were totalitarian, they could invoke the Emergency Measures Act, which would allow them to temporarily suspend civil liberties.  Those restrictions could be challenged in court but would stand in the interim.  They could have suspended the right of the press to platform covid deniers, they could have suspended the rights of people to travel internationally and in between provinces, they could have suspended the rights of people to attend religious services in person, among other reasonable measures.  They did not do any this.  Personally, I wish they would have, because I value the right of people to not die of the plague above the aforementioned rights.  Given they have let tens of thousands of Canadians die rather than restrict people's rights, it seems pretty silly to say this is a totalitarian government. 

I would, however, say that this is a government that values the rights of the privileged over the survival of everyone who isn't privileged.  I would also say that the people holding the levers of power shouldn't be.

Complete nonsense.  The government didn't pay people to stay home, at least not at their full wages.  They also didn't pay businesses to stay closed.  Everyone for the most part has followed all of the guidelines and made significant sacrifices.  Suggesting that this summer be limited to small outdoor gatherings is anti-science.  And you're completely misinformed.  The government did suspend many people's rights, which is in itself an oxymoron, because rights are rights no matter what.  A pandemic doesn't nullify the constitution or the charter of rights.  Regardless, there is no right to not die of a plague.  And it's not a plague in the old sense of the term.  It's significantly less deadly than any previous pandemics.  If you're afraid of catching covid, stay home.  But you have absolutely no right to force other people to stay home or destroy they're livelihoods to make you safe.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2021 at 10:06 AM, Zeitgeist said:

You’re right.  We are shifting from a policy focused on protecting the vulnerable from death and keeping the hospitalization and death rates to a level in keeping with other major illnesses to an absolutist policy of no freedom without eradicating Covid and Covid illness, which of course is impossible.  Destroying businesses, mental health, socialization, education, and freedom of movement to meet an extreme standard of safety is unjustifiable.

The lockdown in Ontario will reach the two month mark by early June.  We will see 70% of the population vaccinated before the end of June.  Case counts are diminishing.  We must remove mandatory restrictions and shift to a policy of individual responsibility by summer.  People aren’t sheep and should be trusted to make decisions about their own safety or we are no longer a free society.

The vaccines will be universally available to all aged 12 and up who want them soon and they’re already available to them in the hotspots.  If you haven’t had a vaccine yet or you don’t want a vaccine and are worried about getting Covid, stay home and mask up when you must go out.  No one is making you socialize or travel.  The vaccines have been available to vulnerable populations for some time.

End the mass hysteria and the tyranny of the public health technocrats.  

Thankfully, the guidelines for the summer put forth by anti-science Tam, isn't something provinces have to follow.  I suspect that provinces will adhere to the actual science and come up with their own policies, which will be much less restrictive in June, and especially July and August.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 2:05 PM, GrittyLeftist said:

I tried googling up the article you mention, was unable to find anything by Chomsky on thenation.com before 1999.

If I equated "saying or doing something I disagree with" with "being an idiot or a traitor" I would not be able to collaborate with anyone. 

Okay, now that I've had time to think about and do some reading..................

That Nation article was archived. So I assumed it's simply burying in plain sight, because they know very few these days will go through the effort of trying to find it! But it was posted on the Nation's website years ago! 

And this isn't a matter of not being able to agree on everything! It's a question of whether those who make a claim of having ideological principles act on those principles consistently or toss them aside when convenient or profitable to do so!

Quote

 

FWIW Neoliberalism was well entrenched in the West well before the Berlin Wall fell.  The fall of the Soviet Union did not cause the West to swing to the right, that swing was already well underway.

Agreed that there are problems with American imperialism.  I've learned that "opposing a bad thing" is not the same as "being a good thing."  I suspect if we traded American hegemony for Russian or Chinese hegeomny we would end up with buyer's remorse.


 

I said in my post that the change in tactics was operational and not likely a change in ideology, that was almost certainly just below the surface.....like a crocodile waiting for the right time to attack! 

The obvious reasons why Cold War US regimes were tolerant of union...especially large unions and their leaders was because they knew the leaders were already coopted somewhat...certainly anti-communist, and acting ruthlessly against workers as both parties do today would have raised the risk that, with just a little funding, the Soviets or the Chinese could have helped real leftist anticapitalist organizers. So they acted with caution when it was essential to do so.

Many geopolitical analysts on left and right have stated that the differences between the way the US deals with Russia and China today, compared to the Cold War era, shows a complete lack of respect... for instance: their bullshit "Rules-Based Order" directives they are expecting all other nations to follow! The US doesn't follow international law or even the shit they declare others need to follow, and yet our useless MSM will repeat these calls from Blinky and Joe every time they open their stupid mouths! The good thing is that, as time goes on, and the US becomes more and more trapped by the debt it is creating to keep up with budgetary demands, its Empire will slowly recede from view and be disregarded by Russia and China and Iran and others....being considered little more than a barking dog! Because the US is having to withdraw from the warzones it has created whether it wants to or not, and all it has been able to accomplish in the wars it has been causing in Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Afghanistan, Syria, Sudan, Somalia, Yemen,  is (like proxy Israel) to keep bombing the shit out of them and pay for any mercenaries to go in and ruin lives of people there.

So, I for one believe US hegemony is far worse than the multipolar world order both Russia and China are trying to work towards. I am not buying US exploitation, so I will have no remorse whoever or whatever takes its place! 

It's a toxic world order that endangers most of the people in this world, and only benefits the "dark triad" thinking billionaires who feed off misery and exploitation, and don't respect any limits to their greed and self-aggrandizement! 

If I have to choose between a left that's comfortable with the system we have now, or any radical antiwar activists on the left or the right, I'll take the latter!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Actually, FDR programs were challenged at many levels and he admired Italy's Mussolini and his ability to "get things done" with fascist aplomb.   In 1935, the U.S. National Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court.   New Deal social programs benefits were denied to many groups, land was seized, and American citizens were interned during WW2.

So who was arguing anything different here? I'll take your word about the fascism thing, cause I know most of the republican leaders were fascist sympathizers, and at least FDR, like Churchill, was able to recognize that Hitler was a greater threat to the west than Stalin. And that's why they chose to work with the Soviets, rather than the Nazis, as I suppose you and other fascist sympathizers would have preferred.

Quote

 

As for cutting U.S. defense budgets, Obama and the Congress cut spending starting in 2011 as part of a federal budget deal that required "sequestration".   Even today, U.S. defense spending as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in many decades.

 

Dear Pentagon: It's Not How Big Your Budget Is. It's How You Use It. –  Foreign Policy

 

Give me a chart with actual numbers on it! Not this bullshit % of GDP that war grifters use to keep feeding off tax dollars! That is why our world has never been more dangerous than it is today! For decades, even a glitch in programming could set off a massive launch of ICBM's that would result in all life on earth being destroyed! But, nukes and their missile carriers are a very lucrative business. And that is why Obama signed on to a more than a $Trillion nuclear arms refurbishing plan, and Trump actually threw more money on the pile during his term in the White House! A pox on all of their houses!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Do you have an example of this exact thing? I've never heard of such a place.

Also, don't forget that the FN people were elevated from the stone age to the space age in that period of time. Life for them wasn't as beautiful as you're imagining it pre-1492. Would you like to try to survive year round by cold lake with just wood to burn and some furs? 

They'd have had war and suffering even if their continent somehow remained hidden, like Wakanda. They'd have their own wars and slavery going on right now. Luddite Nirvana would not exist GL.

Your version of history sounds a lot like: "Everything should have been perfect for everyone, but it wasn't. We just made everything way worse in every way for every single human everywhere! Canada is awful!" That's not reality. 

To avoid miscommunication (and another gigantic essay :P), I've put this into standard form and simplified it as much as possible:

1)Ever since 1763, it has been the law in Canada that Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by negotiating treaties between the Crown and whichever group claims the land.

2)Canada broke this law.  

3)Therefore, Canada has a legal obligation to accept justice, under its own laws.

Arguments such as "we gave them science," or "they had it bad before we got here," or "the world is imperfect so of course Canada is imperfect too," are reasonable but do not address either the premises or the conclusion of this argument. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/17/2021 at 11:28 AM, Right To Left said:

And that is why I see anarchism and anarchists as, at best, only good for ideology and rhetoric - and at worst, deliberately subversive forces, who have been proven in the past to have deliberately worked on behalf of and been paid by the worst capitalists out there and recruited by the CIA, FBI and other agents of evil, to sow confusion and divide working people looking for direction and relief, into hostile factions fighting with each other about race, gender, sexual orientation or how much or whether to work with capitalists! It's happened in the past and it certainly is still happening today!

Well, by the historical timeline, FDR didn't take over as president until the middle of March, 1933, while RB Bennett was out in 1935, and replaced by FDR Canadian equivalent- MacKenzie King, who got the credit for turning the Canadian economy around. So, Bennett wasn't a contemporary of Roosevelt for very long!

And there were two distinct 'new deals' brought in by Roosevelt in the US, with the first intended to sort out and reform the financial mess left by Wall Street bankers, so that people could trust putting their savings in bank accounts again. After a wave of bank failures, banks were starved for deposits, and people with money to save, were buying gold....which FDR outlawed and that stuck for several decades until Nixon unpegged the USD from a gold standard in 1973.

It took a little while to get the public works projects funded and slowly up and running...back in that bygone era when economists and money experts actually believed that money should have intrinsic value! So, I was surprised to learn recently that one of Roosevelt's less publicized actions in his first term was to cut the Army and Navy budgets, so that money could be set aside for the PWA, rural electrification and relief programs for farmers who lost their land. Imagine anyone in Washington even suggesting cutting the misnamed "defense" budgets today for any reason!

I see where you're going with your critique of anarchism, but I think you may be conflating some individuals with the philosophical school of thought.  I have no doubt that individual Anarchists have done many abominable things, but the idea as a whole has not.  That said, I think I understand you to be arguing that Anarchism is basically an unworkable idea that only exists on paper so we should probably focus our energies on things that are possible.  Please let me know if I don't understand correctly.  FWIW, I've heard people make those same arguments against Communism.  It is certainly a fact that people on the far left put as much effort into fighting one another as they do into anything else.  Here's a good comic about it:

Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophers VII: Left Wing Adventures - Existential Comics

Sounds like you are more knowledgeable than I about that period of US history.  Good for him for managing to reduce America's military budget.  American values are really strange to me - they don't want to be taxed for anything that could help Americans, but they are super eager to be taxed to pay for dropping bombs on helpless people.  Weird that you can love your country while also hating half of the people in your country.  I suppose it would make sense to me if I had been born there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Actually most modern wars are still fairly conventional.  Yes there’s more air power and drone strikes, but war/peace-making isn’t a unisex hair studio.  

That is because those wars are not fought between great powers - they are either non-nuclear powers squabbling, or nuclear powers bullying non-nuclear powers.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

There are no real jobs for people in an economy with government policy that doesn’t address real challenges, like innovation, research and development, efficiency, productivity, and quality of life across a range of metrics.  There is only welfare through theft from capable people who actually do things in creepy redistribution equity identity politics programs.  It’s called theft to make winners out of people who contribute less and to make losers out of those who contribute more.

So your basic point is that an economy must have 'winners' and 'losers', and if it does not, it means that the 'winners' are being 'stolen' from by the 'losers'?  Am I reading that right?  

Walmart owners are making money hand-over-fist, paying their workers less than a living wage and baking billions.  The government (aka taxpayers) get to step in and subsidize the workers that Walmart can't 'afford' to pay.  Who's 'stealing' here?  Is there anything wrong with taking some of the 100s of millions the Waltons earn and using that to pay their workers a wage high enough that they don't need government welfare?  Is that stealing from the "competent"?  

 

Quote

 It’s a watered down version of Pol Pot’s imprisonment and murder of the doctors and engineers.  Alienate the competent by extolling false virtues like making a virtue out of incompetence.  What the hell does race or sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess?  Nothing. 

"Watered down version of Poi Pot's imprisonment" sounds like the usual right-wing hyperbole.

Yes, what does race/sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess?  Having asked that, perhaps you can explain why the right spent months attacking Dr. Tam as a transgendered person because they didn't like her politics.  Whether or not she is transgendered (and I have seen no proof) would be irrelevant to her education, training and knowledge - so why was the right so willing to bring that up every opportunity they had to mock her, to impugn her character and her skills.   

 

17 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

 Fake issues that detract from important work.  The Chinese and Russians must be laughing their asses off.  

Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam.  Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.  

 

Edited by dialamah
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, dialamah said:

 Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam.  Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.  

 

Trudeau is a fool leading the most appalling Federal Govt. in the history of Canada . . . that's a given.  The weird socks, costumes, tears, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. keep the attention on this fool.  The real concerns for any thinking voter are the 'sand-bagging' of the energy industry, the investor lack of confidence in Canada, the Federal agenda of splitting the country along racial, economic, and regional lines, and the huge debt.

Worry yourself silly about Canada's contribution to 'global-warming' and climate change, and what Conservatives think of 'your fool' and his socks.

This country is heading into the dumper . . . . lead by a fool and his minions.  You must be proud.

New book:  'The Evisceration Of Canada' . . . . . . Justin Trudeau.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, blackbird said:

1.  It's pure social engineering and full of lies and exaggerations.  It's all about deception to get votes. 

2.  There is no "systemic" racism. 

3.  Inclusiveness is the new propaganda word of liberals and left

4. to con the masses of immigrants, LBGT etc to voting for them.  Many will believe the big lie even though they have never experienced racism or discrimination. 

5.  Same reason they all go on the pride parades even though they have never been discriminated against. 

6. Just because normal white conservatives don't join in the fake shaming and take part in pride parades doesn't mean they discriminate against everyone.   

7.  But liberals believe any lie their politicians tell them on these announcements. 

8.  Normal people are busy working and living their lives, not discriminating against anyone. 

9.  We're not destroying the environment either.  That's anther lie you liberals and left have swallowed.  

10. Just an excuse to push forward their perverted progressive agenda

11.  and hit hard-working Canadians with ever more carbon taxes. 

1.  You are using 'social engineering' incorrectly.  Social engineering relates to a conman trying to get 'confidential' information out of their target.  It has nothing to do with politicians making promises to get votes.  See definition below. ** 

2.  When it isn't happening to you, it's hard to imagine it happens to anyone.   Until you understand social power, however, you'll never understand systemic racism.

3.  Are you against inclusiveness, then? 

4.  Perhaps the 'masses of immigrants' and LGBTQ etc., aren't being conned so much as more willing to vote for the party that at least acknowledges their right to existence and their right to their rights.  I've even seen that conversation among religious immigrants:  The conservatives are closer to my beliefs about abortion, homosexuals, LGBTQ, but they hate immigrants and brown people, and I'm from a brown, immigrant family.   

5.  Why does one have to be discriminated against before they can make a stand against it?

6. From what I see, 'normal conservatives' indulge in real shaming, not 'fake shaming'.  Conservatives are happy to shame women who have abortions, women who dress inappropriately (too religious, not modest enough), gay people, transgender people, people who are poor, people who have challenges that hinder them in achieving financial success.  Not all conservatives of course; just a lot of them.  

7.  That is as true as me saying that conservatives belief everything their politicians tell them.  You don't do you?

8.  That I would agree with; still, we do have people who think it's ok to yell at strangers to 'go back where you came from', having no idea that the person came from Canada, but only going on their skin color to assume they aren't from Canada and don't belong here.

9.  We're all destroying the environment: me with my computer here, and you with yours.  My car, your car, our nice homes, our luxuries.  All destructive to the environment.  No point in burying your head in the sand.

10.  What is the 'perverted progressive agenda' exactly?

11.  That sounds word-for-word like a politician: "poor, helpless hard-working Canadians being forced to pay another tax."  Words to get you distracted by hating on the carbon tax, something that many Canadians won't pay, but could actually make money on.***   (Not me, I'm in BC).   Maybe educate yourself a bit, instead of just believing whatever comes out of a politicians mouth.

**What is social engineering?

Social engineering is the psychological manipulation of people in the hopes of gaining access to confidential information or systems. It is a form of confidence trick for the purpose of information gathering, fraud, or system access. The attacks used in social engineering can be used to steal employees' confidential information or data, and the most common type of social engineering happens over either phone or email. Other examples of social engineering attacks include criminals posing as service workers or technicians, so they go unnoticed when access the physical site of a business.

***Carbon Tax rebates

Those who heat large homes and drive frequently will be paying more under the plan. The government estimates an average yearly cost of $357 for a household in Ontario, for example. However, with an average rebate of $439 you will end the year in the green. 

In Saskatchewan, where the temperatures are cold and the roads long, the yearly estimated cost would be higher at $588 per family. But rebates can be as high as $883. The average cost impact per household of the federal system can be found here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GrittyLeftist said:

To avoid miscommunication (and another gigantic essay :P), I've put this into standard form and simplified it as much as possible:

1)Ever since 1763, it has been the law in Canada that Aboriginal title can only be extinguished by negotiating treaties between the Crown and whichever group claims the land.

2)Canada broke this law.  

3)Therefore, Canada has a legal obligation to accept justice, under its own laws.

Arguments such as "we gave them science," or "they had it bad before we got here," or "the world is imperfect so of course Canada is imperfect too," are reasonable but do not address either the premises or the conclusion of this argument. 

If you really think that the net result of bringing them from the stone age to the space age just boils down to: "we gave them science", that just displays an astonishing level of ignorance on your part.

How many little girls would choose to live the actual FN lifestyle GL? If you offered families $100,000 to live one full winter in northern Canada, just like the natives did pre-1492, not even 1% of them could hack it. Life here was beyond brutal. 

The FN have it pretty good by any stretch of the imagination now GL.

Think for a second about the fact that in 2021 a single hereditary chief (FYI there are 'hereditary chiefs' in Canada that are as white as King George was, to the naked eye) from one small band has the power to kibosh a pipeline that benefits entire provinces and moves strategic resources around the country. That's almost idiotic, but it's the power that they wield.

I'm sure you're well aware that oil is an extremely critical resource, both militarily and for the economy. So, in effect, one single person has the power to put our country in jeopardy, and there's no requirement for them to show logic or reason. They just have veto power. BOOM! 

The FN also get tax breaks, free money, they can hunt and fish year round, and they get many other benefits that other Canadians don't. 

I'm not saying that life is perfect for them, but it's more than just 'fair'.

They should be thankful that it was Europeans that came here instead of middle easterners. If it was Mohammed's own armies that came here then the FN men would have had the option of beheading or conversion, and if they chose beheading then their wives and children would have been forced into rape slavery. The cultural mix here now would be like modern-day Pakistan:

Quote
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
 

Religious discrimination in Pakistan is a serious issue for the human rights situation in modern-day Pakistan. Hindus, Christians, Sikhs, Shias and Ahmadis among other religious minorities often face discrimination and at times are even subjected to violence. In some cases Christian churches and Ahmadi mosques and the worshippers themselves have been attacked.[1] Khawaja Nazimuddin, the 2nd Prime Minister of Pakistan, stated: "I do not agree that religion is a private affair of the individual nor do I agree that in an Islamic state every citizen has identical rights, no matter what his caste, creed or faith be".[2]

The State of Pakistan has particularly remained a discriminatory law enforcer against Non-Muslims since independence. One of the significant issues being faced by minority communities is the abuse of the blasphemy law. People belonging to minority religions are often falsely accused of using derogatory remarks against the Islamic prophet Muhammad, resulting in fines, lengthy prison sentences, and sometimes the death penalty.[3] Often these accusations are made to settle personal vendettas and, due to the bias against minorities, victims are often immediately presumed guilty without any substantive evidence.[3]

We'd have to wipe out every single one of the FN people twenty times over to equal the human rights record of Pakistan (they've done 2 massive genocides since WWII, killing many millions of people), and yet the only two bad countries on earth - according to leftists - are Canada and Israel. Forgive me if I don't take leftists seriously. You're not making a great case here.

And FWIW, you still forgot to mention where the event that you spoke of occurred. I'm curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Right To Left said:

So who was arguing anything different here? I'll take your word about the fascism thing, cause I know most of the republican leaders were fascist sympathizers, and at least FDR, like Churchill, was able to recognize that Hitler was a greater threat to the west than Stalin. And that's why they chose to work with the Soviets, rather than the Nazis, as I suppose you and other fascist sympathizers would have preferred.

 

It takes more fascists to defeat a fascist.   Either way, get it right when using the American narrative to explain all things communist (or anything else) in Canada, which is just along for the ride.

Edited by bush_cheney2004
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Nefarious Banana said:

Trudeau is a fool leading the most appalling Federal Govt. in the history of Canada . . . that's a given.  The weird socks, costumes, tears, lies, conflicts of interest, etc. keep the attention on this fool.  The real concerns for any thinking voter are the 'sand-bagging' of the energy industry, the investor lack of confidence in Canada, the Federal agenda of splitting the country along racial, economic, and regional lines, and the huge debt.

If a person criticizes Trudeau because he has nice hair, was a "drama teacher", or wears bright socks, that's petty and makes the criticizer look like a partisan who can't come up with actual criticisms.

If a person criticizes JT because he lacks ethics and has been investigated, that has teeth. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, 

The problem isn't that he wears the colourful socks, it's the fact that his superficial choices are what endears him to his sycophant voters. 

Quote

Why can't they get behind addressing climate change,

If leftists could talk about these types of things intelligently there would be room for conversation. Right now the people leading the climate change cause fly in private jets, cruise on yachts, or dedicate a jumbo jet to MSM propagandists to follow them on the election trail. 

Quote

why can't they let adults choose who they want to love,

Now you're lying. That hasn't been an issue in Canada since I was a newborn.

Quote

 whether or not to have children,

Do you mean: "Whether or not to kill healthy unborn who already display cognitive ability"? I can't think of anything else that you could possibly mean by that comment. 

Quote

worship how they want

Since when have people on the right been against anyone worshipping? You're just lying again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

Thanks for your post, it reads as though you made it in good faith and I respect that.  This is a tough issue to talk about because there are lots of commonly accepted "facts" which are actually false, and a lot of the truth has been suppressed.  Sometimes reasonable adults end up shouting their "facts" at each other and nothing really gets discussed. 

You are correct that different groups of people abused and dispersed each other before Canada's arrival.  That does not change the simple fact that Canada broke its own laws by acquiring and keeping much of its land.  Similarly, Canada instituting reserves does not change the fact that Canada broke its own laws.  The argument I'm making is not "Canada did morally bad things so now they should have to pay money to help the less fortunate."  The argument is "Canada is a convicted criminal entity that has never faced justice for the crimes it chose to commit and chooses to perpetuate."  The only laws I am considering are Canada's.

There are many Canadians who believe the myth of "free education" for first nations folks, but it is more complicated.  For instance, all on-reserve schools are federally funded, and long story short, they are funded around 30% less per student than off-reserve schools are.  Indigenous programs spending increases were capped at 2% in the 90s.  Given that indigenous populations have increased by 42.5% since 2006, a great many of their programs are chronically underfunded.  This means that their schools are actually getting less funding per student every year.
https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/first-nations-schools-are-chronically-underfunded
Each band only gets a certain amount of funding for post-secondary grants, and when that money is gone, it's gone.  They are often unable to fund everyone who wants to attend university.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/debunking-the-myth-that-all-first-nations-people-receive-free-post-secondary-education-1.3414183
There are lots of reasonable, well-intentioned adults who believe that all natives get free tuition.  This belief is false.  Haha while living in Yellowknife I met several adults who sincerely believed that all natives get a brand new truck every two years from the taxpayer!  At the time I was a child and I found their sincerity convincing, now I am old enough to do my own research, although I can't help but chuckle at the outlandishness of that particular claim.  I mean, let's assume half of native folks are too young to drive - that is ~800,000 adults, so 400,000 trucks per year, google says the average truck in Canada is 37,345, so Canada would be spending a bit under 15 billion dollars per year on new trucks!  SMH

You are also correct that replacing the Indian Act is very contentious.  The reasons are very complicated - I haven't put the work in to understand why.  This post is going to be super long as it is so I'll just skate past this particular minefield for now.

You are definitely correct with the "strange sort of two-tier citizenship," and you are not the first to point that out.  Keep in mind that the Indian Act was imposed by Canada, not negotiated freely.  There have been lots of attempts to remove, replace, or amend it, and some of the amendments have succeeded but that's it.  Again, super complicated and I haven't put in the work to understand all the history, but I'm pretty sure that the actions of both sides would make sense to someone who had put that work in.  

I personally don't think that McDonald's refusal to fund generous welfare programs is what made Canada's treatment of indigenous folks a genocide - it was more about his efforts to exterminate their identity as a people, which is, admittedly, not what the word "genocide" actually means.  My read on that situation is that the word "genocide" is being stretched from its intended meaning of "attempt to exterminate a people" to include a new meaning of "attempt to exterminate the identity of a people."  From what I understand, the people who authored the Truth & Reconciliation report were well aware that a report just like it gets made every decade or two and then ignored, and they wanted this one to be impossible to ignore, so they chose a very inflammatory term, hoping Canada wouldn't ignore it again.  I don't really approve, personally - I think words have specific meanings, and language becomes much less useful when those meanings are lost.  That said, I understand that the problem of Canadian ignorance and apathy is a real one, and I don't have a better solution.  I don't agree with what they did, but I at least understand why they did it.

At any rate, the Canadian government deployed militarized police officers (the RCMP) to take children from their parents and deliver them to residential schools, and if the children escaped, the RCMP were tasked with tracking them down and returning them.  This went on for more than a hundred years.  However, any potential compensation that may or may not be owed to native folks for this would be a moral argument, and not a legal one, because it was legal in Canada for the RCMP to kidnap children at gunpoint and take them away, if they were native.  By contrast, it was illegal in Canada to gain sovereignty over native lands using any means except treaties negotiated through the Crown.

I prefer to avoid the term "reperations," because it is already used to describe what American black folks are trying to get from the U.S. government.  It is also a moral argument, not a legal one - to the best of my knowledge, America did not need to break its own laws in order to institute and maintain slavery.  Canada's theft of unceded territory is a legal argument.  It has gone to the Supreme Court on numerous occasions.  Canada broke its own laws by acquiring unceded territory, it broke its own laws by keeping that territory, it broke its own laws by harvesting resources on that territory, and it continues to break those laws by refusing to give that territory back. 

Whatever happened to the Loyalists in America is between them and the American government.  If they have a legal argument to make, they should make it.  It has nothing at all to do with natives or with Canada's criminal actions.  If France has a legal argument to make for New France, they should make it.  Other countries crimes have no bearing on Canada's.

People have proven in court that Canada stole unceded land.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/delgamuukw-court-ruling-significance-1.5461763
"The First Nations appealed and eventually the case made its way to the Supreme Court of Canada, which found Aboriginal title could not be extinguished, confirmed that oral testimony is a legitimate form of evidence, and stated that Aboriginal title rights include not only land, but the right to extract resources from the land."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aboriginal_title
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haida_Nation_v_British_Columbia_(Minister_of_Forests)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsilhqot'in_Nation_v_British_Columbia
There are many, many more.  I didn't read these because I've already done a couple hours of research while writing this post and my brain is getting tired.  Basically, you don't need to trust my word, or anyone else's - the truth is out there.  Problem is the truth is so damn complicated, and there are so many nice, profitable lies, oversimplifications, and half-truths.  

Anyways, hope this made sense okay.  Thanks for reading!

I appreciate your sincerity and research. These issues were discussed at length in past threads.  I don’t question the right of anyone to try to make a land claim through the courts.  However, there are wide swaths of BC and Canada as a whole that were neither ceded nor claimed by anyone.  Peoples roamed, warred, and set up temporary settlements over thousands of years.  It wasn’t an issue in early European settlement for more than two hundred years except in pockets of Acadia and New France where the settlements encroached on traditional hunting and fishing grounds or trails and river communications.  The issues arise during periods of mass migration later on, such as during the Potato Famine in the 19th century.  Well the people never stopped coming, and the newcomers were no longer just from the colonial mother counties of Britain or France or the US (Loyalists).  Treaties were formed to deal with the facts on the ground, often incompletely or inconclusively.  Reservations were an attempt at preserving an anachronistic way of life that Indigenous long ago mostly abandoned except in the far North and remote areas where immigrants were in the minority.  Yes there was a suppression of native culture in the name of the majority population’s notions of progress at the time, including public education which was seen by the mainstream as a leg up and way out of a hard life for the agrarian and industrial masses.  By today’s standards of course the early government had a narrow idea of public education, but compare that to the alternative at the time.

Context is everything.  Courts will consider land claims on the merits of the evidence and people who bring them.  I’d say that it’s very hard to ascribe title or ownership of lands that were unclaimed hundreds of years ago to people alive today, to remove or buy out the mostly recent immigrants who occupy them, and then to expect that health, education, and infrastructure on these lands should be paid for by the taxpayers who don’t own or live on them.  To rephrase an old chestnut, No representation without taxation (rather than no taxation without representation).  People are not truly independent if they can’t earn their own money, collect their own taxes from this income, and take care of the infrastructure and institutions on their land, such as schools and hospitals.  To pretend otherwise is a lie.

The reserve system can sometimes be a taxpayer funded theme park where status Indians and those claiming Indigenous blood get free land and funding without having to make financial sacrifices for the upkeep of their own territories.  Now, that’s not all of them.  There are independent territories with viable resources and self-government.  There are wealthy reserves.  There are also many reserves that are not self-sustaining.  On the whole the system is dysfunctional, but the decision to change it must come from the Indigenous inhabitants, and if it’s about simply sending more outside money from taxpayers, the public won’t support that.  

Edited by Zeitgeist
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, GrittyLeftist said:

That is because those wars are not fought between great powers - they are either non-nuclear powers squabbling, or nuclear powers bullying non-nuclear powers.  

Nuclear powers have continued to use mostly conventional warfare.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dialamah said:

So your basic point is that an economy must have 'winners' and 'losers', and if it does not, it means that the 'winners' are being 'stolen' from by the 'losers'?  Am I reading that right?  

Walmart owners are making money hand-over-fist, paying their workers less than a living wage and baking billions.  The government (aka taxpayers) get to step in and subsidize the workers that Walmart can't 'afford' to pay.  Who's 'stealing' here?  Is there anything wrong with taking some of the 100s of millions the Waltons earn and using that to pay their workers a wage high enough that they don't need government welfare?  Is that stealing from the "competent"?  

 

"Watered down version of Poi Pot's imprisonment" sounds like the usual right-wing hyperbole.

Yes, what does race/sexual orientation have to do with technical prowess?  Having asked that, perhaps you can explain why the right spent months attacking Dr. Tam as a transgendered person because they didn't like her politics.  Whether or not she is transgendered (and I have seen no proof) would be irrelevant to her education, training and knowledge - so why was the right so willing to bring that up every opportunity they had to mock her, to impugn her character and her skills.   

 

Yes, so why does the right bring up fake issues, such as the color of Trudeau's socks, his hair style, the gender of Dr. Tam.  Why can't they get behind addressing climate change, why can't they let adults choose who they want to love, whether or not to have children, worship how they want and dress how they want.  

 

I’m neither right nor left.  I don’t care about someone’s sexual orientation or skin colour.  I hold fast to MLK’s idea that we judge people by the content of their character, not superficial markings.

I don’t know what you’re referring to with regard to Tam or how she entered the discussion.

My whole point is that we shouldn’t create policies that create winners and losers in a zero-sum game.  Favouritism is wrong.  Merit is what counts, with the understanding that the strong help out those who can’t help themselves.  That’s a different position from collecting money from taxpayers and redistributing it and certain benefits to people based on skin colour or ethnicity.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Right To Left said:

Take a good look at this picture! Now, tell me, WHERE is "the safest part of the realm" while the men (he-men like you I presume) hack each other to death! 

d7c77km-59197760-9b9e-4291-84d8-732315c6

And fwiw, until we started putting together the barbaric "civilizations" like we have today, no human communities were fighting each other unless there was some calamity causing general food scarcities. 

Today, war and arming for war are profitable businesses, and cause death and destruction just to advance the interests and goals of ruling imperialists and their financial backers! Without empires, we should need no psychopath murderers running around hacking each other to death for the benefit of empire-building! 

I don’t like war.  I’m merely describing it. How many nuclear bombs have been used in wars?  Two.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, dialamah said:

1.  You are using 'social engineering' incorrectly.  Social engineering relates to a conman trying to get 'confidential' information out of their target.  It has nothing to do with politicians making promises to get votes.  See definition below. ** 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_engineering_(political_science)

Quote

Social engineering is a top-down effort to influence particular attitudes and social behaviors on a large scale—most often undertaken by governments, but also carried out by media, academia or private groups—in order to produce desired characteristics in a target population.

In this context blackbird was correct. 

Quote

2.  When it isn't happening to you, it's hard to imagine it happens to anyone.   Until you understand social power, however, you'll never understand systemic racism.

It isn't happening to anyone, therefor it isn't happening to anyone.

The only actual cause of 'systemic racism' here is "self-fulfilling  prophecy". IE, kids who grow up buying into Michelle Obama's disinformation campaign grow up fearing/hating 'pigs', they feel like school is a waste of time, and they believe that being angry and resisting arrest makes you a SJW/hero. It sets kids on a collision course with failure and crime.

Like I've said many times, if you hired Tony Robbins to coach your kid he'd give them the EXACT OPPOSITE MESSAGE that they hear from the first ho. 

Quote

 

3.  Are you against inclusiveness, then? 

 

The most reasonable interpretation of what BB said is that preaching "inclusiveness" is just more virtue signalling.

It's like if I tell you that mashing baby penguins to death for fun is wrong, just to give the impression that I'm on the moral high ground by comparison. 

Quote

4.  Perhaps the 'masses of immigrants' and LGBTQ etc., aren't being conned so much as more willing to vote for the party that at least acknowledges their right to existence and their right to their rights.  I've even seen that conversation among religious immigrants:  The conservatives are closer to my beliefs about abortion, homosexuals, LGBTQ, but they hate immigrants and brown people, and I'm from a brown, immigrant family.   

You just said that they're not being conned, then you showed that you're a stooge for the liberal con yourself.

FYI the conservatives' view of homosexuals/LGBTQ in this country is: "it's legal, myob", and they don't hate brown people or immigrant families.  How the F would you know what I think? How is it possible that you get it 100% wrong every time and yet you keep on belching out the same ignorant bullshit?

Quote

5.  Why does one have to be discriminated against before they can make a stand against it?

Do you have to be guilty of mashing baby penguins to death before I take a stand against you mashing baby penguins to death? 

Quote

6. From what I see, 'normal conservatives' indulge in real shaming, not 'fake shaming'.  Conservatives are happy to shame women who have abortions, women who dress inappropriately (too religious, not modest enough), gay people, transgender people, people who are poor, people who have challenges that hinder them in achieving financial success.  Not all conservatives of course; just a lot of them.  

1) People indulge in shaming, it's not a political issue. 2) There are societal norms that are there for a reason. 3) It's an actual fact that women can dress and act immodestly enough that they will be shunned for real. Moms won't let their daughters associate with them, people will be afraid to hire them, etc. 

Eg, Michelle Obama thinks that Beyonce is a great role model, I think she's a ho. That's because I don't think that singing "when he fucks me good I take his ass to Red Lobster" is classy, and I don't think that twerking with a g-string on in public is a great idea.

I'm proud to say that our girls would never be confused with Beyonce or anyone of that ilk. I think that girls who act like Beyonce make themselves targets for rape. Not because they deserve to get raped, but because when rapists see a wannabe-ho twerking with next to nothing on they set their sights on them. And who are you gonna believe when Martha Stewart and Beyonce both say that they got raped? Anyone with half a brain would come to the conclusion that Beyonce could have given someone the impression that she had consented while she was peeing by a dumpster. It's hard to imagine that MS would falsely give the impression of consent at any point in time. 

Quote

7.  That is as true as me saying that conservatives belief everything their politicians tell them.  You don't do you?

You often repeat blatant falsehoods that are peddled by Lib conmen like Trudeau. 

I'd hazard a guess that you think he's a really decent person, I happen to know that he's a greasy scumbag with no scruples at all. 

 

That's lots to chew on. C'mon dialamah. At some point you have to question what you hear from people. Everyone. Consider what conservatives say, question what liberals say, and vice versa. Right now, everything that Trudeau and CTV say is like gospel truth to you. It's mind-boggling.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I’m neither right nor left.  I don’t care about someone’s sexual orientation or skin colour.  I hold fast to MLK’s idea that we judge people by the content of their character, not superficial markings.

You know that's considered wrong now, right ZG?

The woke have declared that you have to identify people as a product of their skin colour now. 

For example, Will Smith's kid isn't anything like your child or mine, because Will's kid has had a sad, impoverished life and he has faced nothing but obstacles and barriers from the time he was born. 

It's awkward and stupid, but that's 2021. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...